Freethinkers(atheists,agnostics,skeptics) form their opinions about religion on the basis of reason,rather than faith. When religionists are unable to successfully debate ideas with atheists,they often turn character defamation. Even if all the absurd prejudices against atheists were true,that still would not make the incredible claims of religion true. Myth No. 1-"Atheist Are All Immoral." Mature people do not blame or credit the supernatural;they take responsiblity for their own actions,and do not need bribes of "life-after-death" or threats of hellfire in order to obey our secular laws. Myth No 2-"Atheists Are Responsible for the World's Ills." If no one had ever challenged religious authority and the scriptures, there would not be dmocracy,public education,women's rights,the pursuit of science and medicine, or the abolition of slavery! Myth No 3- "Atheists Have no Reason to Live" The individual, not a "creator,"endows human life with meaning. Myth No 4-"Atheists Are Angry People" Atheists can hardly be angry at something that does not exist! Angry religionists abound. Many people have such an intense emotional investment in their irrational belief that the mildest questioning of it makes them furious. There is probably not an open atheist today who has not been a victim of that anger. Myth No 5-"Atheists Must be Unhappy."-:hahanot: Myth No 6-"Atheists Are Arrogant"-Atheists simply lack a belief in a god.They are open-minded. Myth No 7-"Atheists Are Agents of the Devil"-We don't believe in the Devil either. Myth No. 8-"Atheists Are All Communists." Although red-baiting has thankfully died down since the end of the Cold War,this assumption was common throughout the 20th century. It fueled theo-politics and was largely responsible fro such troubling Congressional acts as the adoption of "In God We Trust" as the United States national motto,and the insertion of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Atheism existed long before capitalist or communist theory. It is a philosophical position about religion, not a political-economic belief. Karl Marx was not religious but neither was the great capitalist Adam Smith;the New Testament Jesus advocated a form of communistic living. Myth No 9-"Atheists Are Blind to Truth,Love, and Beauty."-This myth is dehumanizing. We are all born atheists,after all. Religion must be artificially imposed. Freethinkers are committed to the truth and are unwilling to accept myths and fables.The wonderful creative spirit is exemplified by the artistry of such skeptics or freethinkers as Beethoven,Brahms,Bizet,Burns,Coleridge,De Beauvoir,Debussy,Eliot,Flaubert,Hardy,Ibsen,Keats, Longfellow,Lowell,Mozart,Paganini,Rodin,Shelley,Tc haikovsky,Tennyson,Thackeray,Turgenev,Twain, and Whitman. Myth No. 10-"There are no Atheists In Foxholes."-Indeed there are! Many atheists in foxholes retained their rationality and lives even while witnessing the deaths of prayerful Christian peers.

I have no problems with atheists (although I find the axiom "freethinker" somewhat puzzling). What I do have a problem with is that some atheists feel they have to "spread the word" that their lack of belief is correct and that any type of spirituality is wrong. These non-believers seem to thrive in goading people with their version of the "truth" constantly.

I also have a problem with religious fundamentalists that do the same thing, be they Christian, Muslim, etc.

If anyone is sure about these things, without a shadow of a doubt, then I question their ability to think on their own.

I have no problems with atheists (although I find the axiom "freethinker" somewhat puzzling). What I do have a problem with is that some atheists feel they have to "spread the word" that their lack of belief is correct and that any type of spirituality is wrong. These non-believers seem to thrive in goading people with their version of the "truth" constantly.

I also have a problem with religious fundamentalists that do the same thing, be they Christian, Muslim, etc.

If anyone is sure about these things, without a shadow of a doubt, then I question their ability to think on their own.

I totally agree, OP. And actually, the term freethinker means that the person has not yet made a decision about what they believe, but is open to all theories. I don't believe 'freethinkers' around here fit into that category, much as they like to pretend they do.

:)
SMW

I have no problems with atheists (although I find the axiom "freethinker" somewhat puzzling). What I do have a problem with is that some atheists feel they have to "spread the word" that their lack of belief is correct and that any type of spirituality is wrong. These non-believers seem to thrive in goading people with their version of the "truth" constantly.

I also have a problem with religious fundamentalists that do the same thing, be they Christian, Muslim, etc.

If anyone is sure about these things, without a shadow of a doubt, then I question their ability to think on their own.
Great post. Perfect. :)

I have no problems with atheists (although I find the axiom "freethinker" somewhat puzzling). What I do have a problem with is that some atheists feel they have to "spread the word" that their lack of belief is correct and that any type of spirituality is wrong. These non-believers seem to thrive in goading people with their version of the "truth" constantly.

I also have a problem with religious fundamentalists that do the same thing, be they Christian, Muslim, etc.

If anyone is sure about these things, without a shadow of a doubt, then I question their ability to think on their own.
Freethinker=one who forms his opinions about religion independently. Like the freethinkers have not been goaded for so long with xtians version of the "truth". Maybe it's just the right time for freethinkers to say what they think about religion. And I know I have said this before, but this is a debate forum and if you take things personally it will affect your ability to debate.
That you have a problem with it is not any kind of rational answer. I like your Cherokee quote though.

I totally agree, OP. And actually, the term freethinker means that the person has not yet made a decision about what they believe, but is open to all theories. I don't believe 'freethinkers' around here fit into that category, much as they like to pretend they do.

:)
SMW
Your definition of freethinker is wrong!

The majority of people who post here don't have a problem with atheists. They have a problem with smartass people who continuously insult those who are religious. You call atheists Freethinkers yet our Freethinker is anything but a Freethinker. Rather than have an open mind and a willingness to discuss the topic of religion he relies on a constant stream of insults directed toward religion in general and Christianity in particular.

There are quite a few atheists who post in Allforums and the majority of them have never been attacked or insulted for their beliefs. There are a few atheists who have been attacked but never for their beliefs, only for the nasty ways in which they express them and insult those who don't share them.

The majority of people who post here don't have a problem with atheists. They have a problem with smartass people who continuously insult those who are religious. You call atheists Freethinkers yet our Freethinker is anything but a Freethinker. Rather than have an open mind and a willingness to discuss the topic of religion he relies on a constant stream of insults directed toward religion in general and Christianity in particular.

There are quite a few atheists who post in Allforums and the majority of them have never been attacked or insulted for their beliefs. There are a few atheists who have been attacked but never for their beliefs, only for the nasty ways in which they express them and insult those who don't share them.
Your nuttier than a fruitcake!

Your nuttier than a fruitcake!
Yet he is quite correct.

Borg, Vile, Loki, and Blob are all atheist/agnostic and all can carry on a very good religious discussion without being offensive. They make their points and raise their questions without trying to demean or insult. Actually I think the mix here on allforums is quite a good one, we have Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics, Spiritualists, and others here.

BTW - the term "freethinker" as you described it probably fits most all the regular posters here, both believers and non-believers. And Frogger, while you and others may not agree with him in all aspects, is not "nutty". He just says his mind when he thinks someone attacks his beliefs. If that is the definition of "nutty" then I dare say we all are "nutty" here.

The majority of people who post here don't have a problem with atheists. They have a problem with smartass people who continuously insult those who are religious. You call atheists Freethinkers yet our Freethinker is anything but a Freethinker. Rather than have an open mind and a willingness to discuss the topic of religion he relies on a constant stream of insults directed toward religion in general and Christianity in particular.

There are quite a few atheists who post in Allforums and the majority of them have never been attacked or insulted for their beliefs. There are a few atheists who have been attacked but never for their beliefs, only for the nasty ways in which they express them and insult those who don't share them.
A "freethinker" typically means one unfettered by a thought or belief system handed down to them by parents or other authority figures. An atheist, no matter how dull and uninspired he seems to be, would qualify, assuming he comes from a culture of religiosity. Freethinker, is, indeed, a freethinker. America is, by and large, a Christian nation, even though it wasn't founded on Christian ideology. So anyone holding a contrary view is a freethinker. You may disagree with the phrasing of the term, but that's what it means, just as I might disagree with the phrasings of the 'pro-life' or the 'pro-choice' terms.

Wikipedia defines freethought as: a philosophical viewpoint that holds that beliefs should be formed on the basis of science and logical principles and not be compromised by authority, tradition, or any other dogma. So, if anyone here adheres to the particular philosophical viewpoint known as 'freethought', it would be the resident atheists, particularly the more vehement ones. Simply because they do not care to 'play nice' does not make them any less freethinkers.

My dictionary widget describes a freethinker as simply "a person who rejects accepted opinions, especially those concerning religious beliefs".

If anyone is sure about these things, without a shadow of a doubt, then I question their ability to think on their own.
Why? Because if someone dares to be absolutely sure of himself, he or she must automatically be a mindless drone incapable of rational thought?

Because Inviolable would qualify. And are you so sure that you, yourself, OldPhart, could entertain a viewpoint opposite your own?

Why? Because if someone dares to be absolutely sure of himself, he or she must automatically be a mindless drone incapable of rational thought?

Because Inviolable would qualify. And are you so sure that you, yourself, OldPhart, could entertain a viewpoint opposite your own?

I personally find it very hard to believe anyone can be absolutely sure about spiritual issues. There is a natural instinct in most people to question things that are fully based on belief alone. I believe my wife loves me (she's put up with me for over 26 years.... bless her heart), but I have questioned it before.

There may be people that can blindly believe anything, but I would probably question their thought process on that.

I would suggest you ask Inviolable if he has ever questioned his belief. I am not in any position to answer that one.

And since you most likely have no idea what my viewpoint in this matter is, I would find it difficult for you to challenge my inability to entertain opposing viewpoints. You may want to talk to Loki or Blob about this. We have had several very good discussions here over the years.

Napsterbater,

It is one thing to be sure of your position and another thing entirely to be purposely insulting to people who hole other positions. I don't think anyone has a problem with Freethinker having his own postions and even with him being absolutely positive about them. The problem people have with Freethinker is his constantly insulting posts directed at those who profess any sort of faith. He is not satisfied with defending his position but feels it necessary to insult the positions of others, usually in as vile a manner as possible.

I agreed with it the moment I saw it OldPhart.
Nap is right in the fact that I absolutely believe in God and Jesus as my savour.

But that belief isnt confining. I don't understand everything God has to offer to the world, no one can.

Everything else is open to interpretation and I am free to understand and learn from whatever is put in front of me. Everything else being, everything.

Frogger was also correct and I think he was talking about our FreeThinker, the one so named here on all forums.
Who, for has long has I have been reading whatever it spews forth I have noticed one thing. FreeThinker chooses to blind himself/herself from whatever the nature of reality is, with whatever FreeThinker doesn't dislike at the time.

People get side tracked by the moment, understanding that there is something in the moment they dont like.
I think thats often what blinds us and sets us in any direction we take.

If we can find a way to ignore the emotions that set us each down our own path, we would all truely be a "FreeThinker".

Until then, I think we'll all just stumble along our own path and look for comfort anyway we can along the way.

I personally find it very hard to believe anyone can be absolutely sure about spiritual issues.
I personally find it very hard to believe that most people aren't absolutely sure about their spiritual issues, at least, here in the US. Ask anyone who goes to church regularly if they ever seriously entertain the notion that God doesn't exist. They typically say there were times when their faith is challenged. That is not the same thing. Most Christians don't even know what it means to seriously entertain the notion that their God doesn't exist. That is what a lifetime of religious indoctrination does to you, and that is the state of the majority of Christians in the United States.

Here's an exercise. Go to any grocery store in one of the millions of rural towns that exist in this great country. Look at the people you see there. Do you seriously think if you were to strike up a conversation about religion to most, if not all of them, asking them if they've considered the idea that God doesn't exist, in the same way that a Christian were to ask you if you've found Jesus, you wouldn't get chased out of the store?

There may be people that can blindly believe anything, but I would probably question their thought process on that.
Most people in that same grocery store would tell you, if asked the question, "Is your faith in your God absolute?" would give you an unequivocated, "yes."

I would suggest you ask Inviolable if he has ever questioned his belief. I am not in any position to answer that one.
Inviolable has stated before in the forum that he could not seriously entertain the notion that God doesn't exist. God is so much a part of everything he does and how he identifies himself that to him, there is no question at all.

And since you most likely have no idea what my viewpoint in this matter is, I would find it difficult for you to challenge my inability to entertain opposing viewpoints. You may want to talk to Loki or Blob about this. We have had several very good discussions here over the years.
I do not have any idea as to your viewpoints. But I have my own experience which tells me that each person seems to have a very specific and unwavering identity as far as religion and spirituality goes, and while he might change what he publicly identifies as, how he feels inside only very, very rarely changes, and only in the case of major events or personality changes. Like a loved family member dying, growing into an adult, having children, that sort of thing. And even then, in most cases, the inner self doesn't change a whole lot, and it usually only reaffirms prior beliefs.

One might have intellectual conversations about religion, even lightly entertain other notions, but what a person feels deep inside, that doesn't move lightly, and it's never accessible to Joe Blow: Internet Schmuck.

Napsterbater,

It is one thing to be sure of your position and another thing entirely to be purposely insulting to people who hole other positions. I don't think anyone has a problem with Freethinker having his own postions and even with him being absolutely positive about them. The problem people have with Freethinker is his constantly insulting posts directed at those who profess any sort of faith. He is not satisfied with defending his position but feels it necessary to insult the positions of others, usually in as vile a manner as possible.
People don't like him. This is news?

I personally find it very hard to believe that most people aren't absolutely sure about their spiritual issues, at least, here in the US. Ask anyone who goes to church regularly if they ever seriously entertain the notion that God doesn't exist. They typically say there were times when their faith is challenged. That is not the same thing. Most Christians don't even know what it means to seriously entertain the notion that their God doesn't exist. That is what a lifetime of religious indoctrination does to you, and that is the state of the majority of Christians in the United States.

I guess I'm the not "normal" then. I have many times questioned the belief structure of the Christian faith, even though I consider myself a part of that community (albeit a odd part... I agree). I have even questioned God a few times... certain events that life has thrown my way. Unlike many though, I will admit it. I have no fear of condemnation because I question.

Does that make me a poor or strong believer? I don't know, but it is the truth.

Here's an exercise. Go to any grocery store in one of the millions of rural towns that exist in this great country. Look at the people you see there. Do you seriously think if you were to strike up a conversation about religion to most, if not all of them, asking them if they've considered the idea that God doesn't exist, in the same way that a Christian were to ask you if you've found Jesus, you wouldn't get chased out of the store?

Thats where I live...(no, not in the grocery store). I would agree that if I asked a stranger in the store if he/she ever doubted the teachings, dogma, or validity of Christianity, that I would be looked at like I had three heads. But I can tell you that I've asked many personal friends (even ministers) that same question and have yet to have a negative reply. People are generally fairly private in their faith, and do not care to share this info with others that they are not close to. I'm sure that if I asked the question "have you ever cheated on your spouse" in the same store, I would get very few true answers either.

Most people in that same grocery store would tell you, if asked the question, "Is your faith in your God absolute?" would give you an unequivocated, "yes."

* see above ramblings.

Inviolable has stated before in the forum that he could not seriously entertain the notion that God doesn't exist. God is so much a part of everything he does and how he identifies himself that to him, there is no question at all.

And he has never questioned anything about the practices and teachings of a specific verse and/or religious doctrine? There is some difference between questioning the validity of your practices and questioning the actual belief in a supreme being. I would add that I applaud his strength of faith, but doubt that anyone is truly absolute in anything over the course of a lifetime.

I do not have any idea as to your viewpoints. But I have my own experience which tells me that each person seems to have a very specific and unwavering identity as far as religion and spirituality goes, and while he might change what he publicly identifies as, how he feels inside only very, very rarely changes, and only in the case of major events or personality changes. Like a loved family member dying, growing into an adult, having children, that sort of thing. And even then, in most cases, the inner self doesn't change a whole lot, and it usually only reaffirms prior beliefs.

I will not argue that point. I would tend to agree with it for the vast majority of people (I have seen some change.... look at Jere here on allforums). I think there is a difference in fundamentally changing your belief, and questioning the dogma, literature, teachings, and history of your particular faith. Like I said before I know my wife loves me.... but I have questioned her love (although not her existence).

One might have intellectual conversations about religion, even lightly entertain other notions, but what a person feels deep inside, that doesn't move lightly, and it's never accessible to Joe Blow: Internet Schmuck.

It just depends on if you really want to be honest with others (and yourself).

I am not "open' with statements like I made above, because I aim to please anyone here. I do it because it is my truth and it helps me better understand myself. If any here glean anything from it, all well and good, if they see me as a tired "oldphart" that rambles too much.... thats all well and good too.

Wall of text!

I'll read it bit by bit...

And he has never questioned anything about the practices and teachings of a specific verse and/or religious doctrine?
Who cares? I simply said he is absolutely certain in his knowledge that God exists. As God is an absolute fellow, it would follow that most people are absolutely sure of him, whether as Biblegod, an abstract creator force, general benevolent deity, or non-existent. There's a few agnostics out there, some people finding out their specifics as it relates to the God question, but most people have their minds set. Even the agnostics tend to alternate between two fixed choices, abstract creator force and non-existent, briefly entertaining the general benevolence from time to time, but never taking it seriously. Cause if they did take it seriously, they wouldn't be agnostics. They'd be spiritualists, those who "aren't religious, but very spiritual."

But I can tell you that I've asked many personal friends (even ministers) that same question and have yet to have a negative reply.
Ask them if they've ever seriously entertained the notion that God doesn't exist. I don't care about the specifics of dogma, teachings, or validity of Christianity. Doing all that stuff is just exploring the realm of your belief system, not questioning it, and regards the social aspects of belief, not the personal. I'm asking about their basic faith in God. Do they ever question it? And if they have really considered changing from theism to general spirituality, then chances are they were that all along, and remain in the belief system for the social benefits.

Also keep in mind that who you know as friends represents a biased set.

Here's another one. Ask people if they think sending their kids to Sunday School and/or Catechism is a good idea. Chances are you'll get yeses all over the board. Most people think religious indoctrination is a great thing. Think about this the next time you want to ride an atheist's ass for being too vehement in his distaste for Christianity.

Many of the self-proclaimed Athiests I know are actually Agnostics but are so strongly turned off by the followers of organized religion that they call themselves Athiests just to keep them from thinking they can still be converted.

Who cares? I simply said he is absolutely certain in his knowledge that God exists. As God is an absolute fellow, it would follow that most people are absolutely sure of him, whether as Biblegod, an abstract creator force, general benevolent deity, or non-existent. There's a few agnostics out there, some people finding out their specifics as it relates to the God question, but most people have their minds set. Even the agnostics tend to alternate between two fixed choices, abstract creator force and non-existent, briefly entertaining the general benevolence from time to time, but never taking it seriously. Cause if they did take it seriously, they wouldn't be agnostics. They'd be spiritualists, those who "aren't religious, but very spiritual."


Ask them if they've ever seriously entertained the notion that God doesn't exist. I don't care about the specifics of dogma, teachings, or validity of Christianity. Doing all that stuff is just exploring the realm of your belief system, not questioning it, and regards the social aspects of belief, not the personal. I'm asking about their basic faith in God. Do they ever question it? And if they have really considered changing from theism to general spirituality, then chances are they were that all along, and remain in the belief system for the social benefits.

Also keep in mind that who you know as friends represents a biased set.

Here's another one. Ask people if they think sending their kids to Sunday School and/or Catechism is a good idea. Chances are you'll get yeses all over the board. Most people think religious indoctrination is a great thing. Think about this the next time you want to ride an atheist's ass for being too vehement in his distaste for Christianity.

Mercy... you are getting a bit heated there hoss.

I guess where you are getting upset is that I don't believe in life-long faith absolutes. My life experiences tend toward shades of "gray", and very little "black and white". Your's must have led you down a more defined path.

I am offering my opinion on faith, and including my personal experience to show how I arrived at my conclusions. I see you offer no comparative basis for your opinions.

Am I stating that I did an exhaustive research project for my thesis on it? I know my friends would be a biased "set" of inputs. I'm just stating what I have been told, not what everyone in the world thinks. And yes all of them have told me that they have questioned all aspects, including existence.

I speak from my experiences and conclusions drawn from many years of religious following in several congregations, denominations, and groups. I only stated what I believe is the truth. You can take exception to that if you wish, that's your option, and you are entitled to your opinion. It is no worse nor better than mine.

I have no problems with youth in church programs. I don't think it's "bad" for them. I encouraged my kids to think for themselves, ask questions, discuss and evaluate. Matter of fact when my daughter was 5 or so, she went with a friend to VBS at a fundamentalist church. She informed me that she was "saved" one night that week. I asked her what she was "saved" from, and she looked at me and said "I dunno" (We are quite liberal Methodists... I actually thought this was kind of funny).

As far as your apparent bad taste for Christians, I'm truly sorry that you must of had some bad experiences along life's way.

But think of it this way.... if I was mugged and beaten by a black man at some point in my life. I have two choices. I can say "that was a bad man that happened to be black" or "I hate all black people, they want to rob and beat me".

I choose the former.

And when atheists attack any and all believers, I tend to get my hackles up for that same reason

Many of the self-proclaimed Athiests I know are actually Agnostics but are so strongly turned off by the followers of organized religion that they call themselves Athiests just to keep them from thinking they can still be converted.
Neither "atheist" nor "agnostic" is a proper noun, so stop capitalizing them. Also, please spell "atheist" correctly.

'Freethinkers(atheists,agnostics,skeptics) form their opinions about religion on the basis of reason,rather than faith. '


perhaps some of them do indeed. but some confuse fuzzy logic for objective deduction.

atheists put material things above spiritual things. theists do the opposite. its just two different value systems. when it comes to non-spiritual issues the atheists could probably teach the theists a thing or two. but when it comes to spiritual things the atheists could definitely learn from the theists.

We were having a discussion that it seems you can't hack. I notice people tend to say things like, "Are you upset? Getting a little heated there, aren't you?" When they aren't interested anymore in discussion. That's fine if you don't want to discuss, but please don't hide your distaste for my line of argument behind such ill-intentioned blather. I am a very no-bullshit kind of guy, and my arguing method is to quickly and handily sweep false logic off of the floor to clear the way for new understanding. It's curt, but designed to avoid spending page after page debating points completely irrelevant to the topic.

As for where my observations come from, well, they're just that, observations. I use my eyes, then apply my brain to attempt to understand, then ask questions and consider all relevant threads of information I've come about over the years. I've had few bad experiences with Christianity, on the contrary, my own mother is the best example of Christianity I've ever met, reads the bible, goes to church, even shops around to find the best church, prays constantly, wants only the best out of people. She knows about my atheism, wishes I were Christian, invites me to come to church with her, but doesn't make a big deal out of it when I politely but firmly decline.

I rejected Christianity at around 15, but didn't tell my family until my first letter in boot camp. I guess I felt I was safe from reprisals then or some such, don't know why though, it's not like they really would have done anything. As to why, all I can say is that I never believed. I never formed a positive belief and relationship with God. That combined with my tendency to desire intellectual honesty in all things, led me to reject wholeheartedly religion as something I refused to identify with. Over the years my focused observation of people, (something I did rather naturally, as I've always wanted to understand people before I interact with them) led me to this collection of insights into the nature of human belief.

I don't have a bad taste for Christians. Most of my real-life friends are Christians. As I've said in an earlier thread, they're amusingly human. I talk to them all the time about the mundane realities of religion, something I'm very curious about. I would sooner eat my own shit than engage in a real-world discussion of religion. Not so much with Christians, though, it's with all those self-effacing "spiritualists" who think that because they have a more "enlightened" point of view, they can tell me all about my powerful aura and shit and give me advice and try to mentor me. It's from dealing with these folk, not Christians, that I get my no-bullshit attitude. Christians are more laid back and fun to be with, because, while Christians have their unshakable faith, most keep it right where it belongs, in their heart.

I understand your experience is necessarily different from mine. But you should be able to argue effectively for a point of view irregardless. I think all points of view can be effectively communicated, and it's my wish to see them as such. It is much much more fun discussing with a person capable of arguing effectively than it is to try to seriously debate someone who cannot. So, I regret that you cannot continue effectively. Maybe take a breather, and come back with a new perspective or angle?

atheists put material things above spiritual things. theists do the opposite. its just two different value systems. when it comes to non-spiritual issues the atheists could probably teach the theists a thing or two. but when it comes to spiritual things the atheists could definitely learn from the theists.
What a ridiculous dichotomy.

What a ridiculous dichotomy.


Taking this out of context a little.

I think for the most part Atheist understand the meaning of unconditional love.
Well, the smart ones I've run across seem to and thats why I think they'er Atheist.
However there are people who are Atheist because of emotional influence.

I haven't seen you bitch like the emotional kind though.

Could you clarify? How could understanding the meaning of unconditional love lead to rejecting religion?

And could you elaborate a little more on the two types of atheists you draw out?

Could you clarify? How could understanding the meaning of unconditional love lead to rejecting religion?

And could you elaborate a little more on the two types of atheists you draw out?


No prob.

Taking from my own experience, I never knew what uncondictional love was until I became a Christian. So I never understood it.
When I finally did understand it, it was very overwhelming, "religious".

In most people I have met who are usaully very educated as well as Atheist.
They would more often then not have very loving parents.
Just from an observation mind you. But it seemed like the parents were showing, uncondictional love.
Which would mean the person in question, would have known uncondictional love their entire lives. Which would give them an understanding of it regardless or not, if they knew themselves.

So someone explaining that sensation to them would seem trivial.
And no doubt they would see it as ignorance to a degree.

The emotional kind of Atheist, has I have seen several times and again, just an observation. Is someone who feels rejected in one form or another.

I, and most people I know, would reject your premise of the 10 common myths. The statements are fallacious and could not be said, with a straight face, by any rational person. This is not to say that you are irrational. Rather I suspect that you have posited them to start yet another "us vs them" debate..
Well, I won't slag anyone, on the basis of religion, or lack of it. Atheists, agnostics and believers, in any the various religions, are all generally good people.
Fanatics, of any persuasion, are just that ... fanatics.

That's a very intriguing observation, Inviolable, glad you were able to share it.

I'll have to think some on this emotional atheist. But I'd be willing to wager that most of them rejected religion in much the same way I rejected religion, they never formed the personal relationship with God for Christianity to take root, then decided to reject religion because they could never feel it.

Where the process went wrong was first, when the child's authority structure dropped the ball by not doing enough to encourage a personal relationship with Christ, and second, when they overcompensated for their earlier misstep by applying social pressure to get the young adult to conform, when they should have realized he was a lost cause.

This combination sends a very strong signal to a young person that he is not cared for insofar as his unwillingness to conform persists. But he cannot conform, and is so branded as an outcast. When this happens to teenagers, a marked transformation takes place in them as they seek to find a place for themselves in the world. This particular transformation, the cause isn't always religion, happens in so many children these days it's a wonder we have a functioning society at all. It has just become a staple of our modern life. I suppose it's another way our social constructs are evolving.

A lot of truth in your comment. I think it was Oliver Cromwell that said "Give me a child until he's six, and he's mine forever" .
Anyway, children need rules and structure. That's how they learn. As they age and begin to reason these rules will be challenged. The ability to reason will increase, the environment will change and the child will continually challenge the rules and structure. That is good. Parents and society must be prepared to respond and change as necessary. That's how we all improve.
However, if children are raised without rules and structure, then they are essentially in a state of chaos. They do not what is expected of them and get frustrated and unable to develop a logical basis for reasoning.

I, and most people I know, would reject your premise of the 10 common myths. The statements are fallacious and could not be said, with a straight face, by any rational person. This is not to say that you are irrational. Rather I suspect that you have posited them to start yet another "us vs them" debate..
Well, I won't slag anyone, on the basis of religion, or lack of it. Atheists, agnostics and believers, in any the various religions, are all generally good people.
Fanatics, of any persuasion, are just that ... fanatics. While I'm glad that "most"people you know would reject these statements about atheists unfortunatly that is not the case with all people. And I'm sure that some could say them with a straight face and would tell you that they are not being irrational. And I agree most people are generally good,even fanatics. :)

A lot of truth in your comment. I think it was Oliver Cromwell that said "Give me a child until he's six, and he's mine forever" .
Anyway, children need rules and structure. That's how they learn. As they age and begin to reason these rules will be challenged. The ability to reason will increase, the environment will change and the child will continually challenge the rules and structure. That is good. Parents and society must be prepared to respond and change as necessary. That's how we all improve.
However, if children are raised without rules and structure, then they are essentially in a state of chaos. They do not what is expected of them and get frustrated and unable to develop a logical basis for reasoning.
I suppose you think religion is a necessary component of those rules and structure?

That's a very intriguing observation, Inviolable, glad you were able to share it.
Thank you, it was my pleasure.

I'll have to think some on this emotional atheist. But I'd be willing to wager that most of them rejected religion in much the same way I rejected religion, they never formed the personal relationship with God for Christianity to take root, then decided to reject religion because they could never feel it.

Where the process went wrong was first, when the child's authority structure dropped the ball by not doing enough to encourage a personal relationship with Christ, and second, when they overcompensated for their earlier misstep by applying social pressure to get the young adult to conform, when they should have realized he was a lost cause.

This combination sends a very strong signal to a young person that he is not cared for insofar as his unwillingness to conform persists. But he cannot conform, and is so branded as an outcast. When this happens to teenagers, a marked transformation takes place in them as they seek to find a place for themselves in the world. This particular transformation, the cause isn't always religion, happens in so many children these days it's a wonder we have a functioning society at all. It has just become a staple of our modern life. I suppose it's another way our social constructs are evolving.

I agree, I would also add that quite a bit of it has to do with the young adults ability to understand everything their parents want out of them. Often times the parents themselve dont understand how to get their point across, because of their childs inability to see what they'er doing.
A lot that is learned is carried through to adulthood, has you stated.
I also agree that this happens with quite a few people.

However, I am also willing to bet that when and if the parents come to understand exactly what happened it is to late for explanaitions.
Which leaves the young adult to have feelings that may fester as they mature. maturing the only way they can and grasping onto thoughts that arent healthy in order to cope.
I am guessing those thoughts could also bring about a form of resentment, that would only get worse.

Which makes it impossible for any of us to be a true, freethinker.

Wheres Blob? he normaly translates...

Dang Nap, I'm talking psychobabble.
It's your fault.

We were having a discussion that it seems you can't hack. I notice people tend to say things like, "Are you upset? Getting a little heated there, aren't you?" When they aren't interested anymore in discussion. That's fine if you don't want to discuss, but please don't hide your distaste for my line of argument behind such ill-intentioned blather. I am a very no-bullshit kind of guy, and my arguing method is to quickly and handily sweep false logic off of the floor to clear the way for new understanding. It's curt, but designed to avoid spending page after page debating points completely irrelevant to the topic.

I think you misunderstand, I have no problem discussing these points of our differing views of faith and the atheist/believer dynamics. I suppose I took your curt method of discussion as you being upset, for that I apologize.

As for where my observations come from, well, they're just that, observations. I use my eyes, then apply my brain to attempt to understand, then ask questions and consider all relevant threads of information I've come about over the years. I've had few bad experiences with Christianity, on the contrary, my own mother is the best example of Christianity I've ever met, reads the bible, goes to church, even shops around to find the best church, prays constantly, wants only the best out of people. She knows about my atheism, wishes I were Christian, invites me to come to church with her, but doesn't make a big deal out of it when I politely but firmly decline.

And my observations are likewise based on personal experiences. We all see things differently, that's what makes discussions with others so valuable. It allows one to "see through others eyes" a bit. Personally, this is where I learn a lot, even though my core philosophy may not change... my understanding of others views are broadened.

Also, based on your post, your Mother seems to be a fine example of a Christian. It's a shame that so many others that practice the Christian faith are not as tolerant and gracious as she.

I rejected Christianity at around 15, but didn't tell my family until my first letter in boot camp. I guess I felt I was safe from reprisals then or some such, don't know why though, it's not like they really would have done anything. As to why, all I can say is that I never believed. I never formed a positive belief and relationship with God. That combined with my tendency to desire intellectual honesty in all things, led me to reject wholeheartedly religion as something I refused to identify with. Over the years my focused observation of people, (something I did rather naturally, as I've always wanted to understand people before I interact with them) led me to this collection of insights into the nature of human belief.

I don't have a bad taste for Christians. Most of my real-life friends are Christians. As I've said in an earlier thread, they're amusingly human. I talk to them all the time about the mundane realities of religion, something I'm very curious about. I would sooner eat my own shit than engage in a real-world discussion of religion. Not so much with Christians, though, it's with all those self-effacing "spiritualists" who think that because they have a more "enlightened" point of view, they can tell me all about my powerful aura and shit and give me advice and try to mentor me. It's from dealing with these folk, not Christians, that I get my no-bullshit attitude. Christians are more laid back and fun to be with, because, while Christians have their unshakable faith, most keep it right where it belongs, in their heart.

Understood. I dislike religious discussions in person for many of the same reasons. Where I live, my liberal Christian viewpoint is often equated to being a "heretic" to the great bastions of more conservative believers that I am often surrounded by.

I understand your experience is necessarily different from mine. But you should be able to argue effectively for a point of view irregardless. I think all points of view can be effectively communicated, and it's my wish to see them as such. It is much much more fun discussing with a person capable of arguing effectively than it is to try to seriously debate someone who cannot. So, I regret that you cannot continue effectively. Maybe take a breather, and come back with a new perspective or angle?

Again with an attack? This is why I thought you were getting angry before. There is a difference in being "no-bullshit" and being condescending. I am actually sharing opinions and experiences with you on beliefs and observations. I am not debating who is right or wrong. I regret that you see this discourse as such. It may be that I am too poor a communicator here, if so again I apologize. But also understand that your responses make you seem less like someone who wants to discuss, debate, and learn, and more like someone who is trying (so very hard) to prove that he is superior.

Again with an attack? This is why I thought you were getting angry before. There is a difference in being "no-bullshit" and being condescending. I am actually sharing opinions and experiences with you on beliefs and observations. I am not debating who is right or wrong. I regret that you see this discourse as such. It may be that I am too poor a communicator here, if so again I apologize. But also understand that your responses make you seem less like someone who wants to discuss, debate, and learn, and more like someone who is trying (so very hard) to prove that he is superior.
Relax. You Christians seem to be too defensive. The reason I said those things is because discussions have an ebb and a flow, a gentle rhythm that is more like a dance than anything. You have to be able to hold up your end of it, and when you don't, it leaves me sitting around wondering how to get it back on track quickly with a minimum of fuss. I'm still working on my technique to be able to do that, so bear with me here.

Personally, this is where I learn a lot, even though my core philosophy may not change... my understanding of others views are broadened.
I do this too, but I deal with the world plainly. First I try to see the world as it is, no mean feat, then I try to build a point of view from it. In order to see the world as it is, I have to look clearly, logically, and with a statistical eye toward things, as opposed to anecdotally. I find that much of what we think is shaped by what we see in the movies and on TV. I think when we think of the average American family, we think of some abstraction of that. There are a lot of unconscious biases that I have to 'control' for when building a picture of reality.

I like hearing stories, but when trying to nail down a concise picture of reality, a different form of thought is necessary, and I hope I can get you to understand this. I don't mind hearing them, but every time an exception to my generalization comes up, I have to use logic to classify it, and think about how it affects my version of things. It might seem needlessly argumentative, but I'm trying to build something here. There's exceptions to every generalization, and I have to figure out whether it's a true exception, or a phenomena requiring adjustment to the model. So bring your anecdotes, but be prepared to discuss them and how they fit into a paradigm.

I'm afraid the discussion is hopelessly derailed at this point, but my aim was to nail down a pretty good generalization of how people tend to think about religion. I already elaborated to you how I think people tend to think about these things. I know you seem to think differently, and I am prepared to hear your point of view. Again, I'm not interested in people exploring the realm of their beliefs. That is natural and easily seen. The basics, faith in God, how people see God, these things don't change lightly. You seem to think they do. Why do you think this?

Dang Nap, I'm talking psychobabble.
It's your fault.
Heh, you see how difficult it is to make good generalizations about the nature of human behavior? This is why I think the religious way of explaining things is hopelessly incompetent at describing the world. That's why I adhere to freethought, the belief that science and logical principles is the best way to look at the world.

People don't like him. This is news?
I like him. I have learned a great deal from him. I also respect him.

Many of the self-proclaimed Athiests I know are actually Agnostics but are so strongly turned off by the followers of organized religion that they call themselves Athiests just to keep them from thinking they can still be converted.

That's funny, Dharma. Reminds me of how my g/f told me to avoid long discussions with fundamentalists of any religion (esp Jehovah Witnesses who often showed up at my door at the time).

"Just tell 'em you're Catholic and they'll leave you alone."

Works like a charm! I guess there's just too much latin involved to argue about it.

;)
SMW

I'm afraid the discussion is hopelessly derailed at this point, but my aim was to nail down a pretty good generalization of how people tend to think about religion. I already elaborated to you how I think people tend to think about these things. I know you seem to think differently, and I am prepared to hear your point of view. Again, I'm not interested in people exploring the realm of their beliefs. That is natural and easily seen. The basics, faith in God, how people see God, these things don't change lightly. You seem to think they do. Why do you think this?

Fair enough.

Again, I may not have communicated the questioning of faith, that I feel does sometimes occur, very well. I agree with you that these issues do not change lightly, but I do differ with you that they can change (sometimes permanently, sometimes not, but they can change no less).

My Father, who was similar to your Mom in his Christianity, is one personal example of this. Watching this man slowly erode until his passing, Watching his grief (and experiencing my family's and my own), did make me question all forms of my belief. It wasn't permanent, in my case, but I did doubt. Maybe I shouldn't admit it, maybe the doubt and anger is a sign of weakness on my part, but I did and that is a personal fact. Many of those (that I mentioned as friends) that I asked about this told me they had experienced this also.

Do I think I'm alone in this? No. Am I proud that I did this? Not really. Do I think I'm the only one that has ever felt this way? Again, no.

That's the best way that I can explain this. I hope that it helps to clarify my earlier postings.

Sorry about the "derail" it was not my intent.

I think it was Oliver Cromwell that said "Give me a child until he's six, and he's mine forever" .


.


I hate to correct a fellow history buff, Oldtimer, but it wasn't Oliver Cromwell who said that, but St Ignatius Loyola.
Cromwell's Roundheads were a lot more liberal-minded--

Each according to his own conscience......


a quote that says it all. My only contribution to this thread--wouldn't think of topping the Lord Protector.

My God, Nappy, what an overbearing prig you are. You are one of the most condescending people I have ever come across and one who is condescending with very little reason to be. You couldn't hack it in the military. You couldn't hack it in college. You can't hack it on the job scene and you still have the gall to snub your nose at others. Unbelieveable.

My God, Nappy, what an overbearing prig you are. You are one of the most condescending people I have ever come across and one who is condescending with very little reason to be. You couldn't hack it in the military. You couldn't hack it in college. You can't hack it on the job scene and you still have the gall to snub your nose at others. Unbelieveable.

I think he was a Marine, hes got a posting style of one.

It's the "a Marine can do anything attitude" thats overbearing.

Whatever branch of the service he was in he couldn't stick it out and got an early discharge. He quit the service just as he quit college.


When the going get tough the tough get going. When the going gets tough Nappy gets condescending.

I still like Nappy as a poster but he does get more than a bit annoying at times.

I think he was a Marine, hes got a posting style of one.

It's the "a Marine can do anything attitude" thats overbearing.
I'm pretty sure it was the Air Force he was in.

I'm pretty sure it was the Air Force he was in.

Oh, the Airforce.

My brother was in the Airforce.

Not much else I can say.

I'm pretty sure it was the Air Force he was in.

Damn, he couldn't hack the airforce. The airforce is for pussies.

Damn, he couldn't hack the airforce. The airforce is for pussies.

lol

I just said, my brother was in the Airforce!

Aww, shut your pie hole, Frogger. I'm holding my current job now just fine. I'm doing a hell of a lot better than my sister is. I couldn't be happy in college, I couldn't be happy in the Air Force. (Chair Force!) I'm happy now, happier than I've ever been. I chose my current station in life, it didn't choose me. Interesting how you seek to invalidate everything I say on the basis of what I've admitted on the Internet. I'm not going to mention the name of the fallacy, but it's one you seem to commit frequently. So ESAD, k?

I build my beliefs on the basis of facts, scientific inquiry, and logical principles. Frogger builds his on authority, popular culture, tradition, and dogmatic principles.

Again, I may not have communicated the questioning of faith, that I feel does sometimes occur, very well. I agree with you that these issues do not change lightly, but I do differ with you that they can change (sometimes permanently, sometimes not, but they can change no less).
Hm. I've said as much before. I shall restate them for your benefit.

But I have my own experience which tells me that each person seems to have a very specific and unwavering identity as far as religion and spirituality goes, and while he might change what he publicly identifies as, how he feels inside only very, very rarely changes, and only in the case of major events or personality changes. Like a loved family member dying, growing into an adult, having children, that sort of thing. And even then, in most cases, the inner self doesn't change a whole lot, and it usually only reaffirms prior beliefs.

How would you compare that statement to your own experience?

sigh.........

The inner self is defined by those experiences, Nappy.

I remind you that you said:

Ask them if they've ever seriously entertained the notion that God doesn't exist. I don't care about the specifics of dogma, teachings, or validity of Christianity. Doing all that stuff is just exploring the realm of your belief system, not questioning it, and regards the social aspects of belief, not the personal. I'm asking about their basic faith in God. Do they ever question it? And if they have really considered changing from theism to general spirituality, then chances are they were that all along, and remain in the belief system for the social benefits.

I stated areas based on my personal experience and experiences with others.

I'm glad the world is full of absolutes for you. It should make your life more simple and enjoyable than for most. But for some reason, I don't think that it does, does it?

Look me up in about 20 years after you have a few of these life experiences under your belt, and maybe we can discuss this again.

Peace

sigh.........

The inner self is defined by those experiences, Nappy.
What is this? Come now, how is that any different from what I said? Changed, defined, it's the same thing. You just don't want to admit I was right all along and that you had a conniption over nothing. So you hide behind experience, you hide behind authority, to save face in an argument. Just like Frogger. "Come back in twenty years when you have some experience," what the hell kind of argument is that? I asked you for your thoughts, so I can build a point of view. You don't seem to want to contribute to that.

It's too bad, because you were just beginning to earn a little respect from me, as Inviolable has.

You want to think I'm full of absolutes based on my observations on what most people seem to think? That's an absurd characterization, with a ridiculous basis.

What is this? Come now, how is that any different from what I said? Changed, defined, it's the same thing. You just don't want to admit I was right all along and that you had a conniption over nothing. So you hide behind experience, you hide behind authority, to save face in an argument. Just like Frogger. "Come back in twenty years when you have some experience," what the hell kind of argument is that? I asked you for your thoughts, so I can build a point of view. You don't seem to want to contribute to that.

It seems your "point of view" is already set. I'm just pointing out that it is incorrect. Otherwise, why all the rebuttals from you over something you know nothing about?

You said belief is absolute and not open to questioning. I said you were wrong and listed why I had questioned but still believed. Since I have questioned and am still a believer, then your "theory" is shot (unless you want to call me a liar). Far be it from me to threaten the "master" of religious belief, especially considering you are an atheist. Maybe you should journey back to the Chat Central forums and tell women what they really want. You seem to be the master of things you know nothing about.

Would you like to debate what's it like to have a child? bury a parent? go through rough times during a long term marriage?

I'm sure you could tell us all what we should/should not do and feel on these and many other subjects that you have no experience with.

It's too bad, because you were just beginning to earn a little respect from me, as Inviolable has.

I hate to break the news to you, but I am not trying to earn your respect. I'm also not trying to get an award from Kim Jong Il in "Democratic Theory".

You want to think I'm full of absolutes based on my observations on what most people seem to think? That's an absurd characterization, with a ridiculous basis.

Not near as absurd as saying what a religious believer "thinks" from the viewpoint an atheist.

I don't revel in my experience necessarily (I'm getting old dangit), but you have none in this area. No matter what you may "think" you know.

Remember... wisdom is knowing what you do not know.

I couldn't be happy in the Air Force.

You couldn't be happy in the Air Force. Big Fuckin' Deal. Who cares if you were happy. You signed a contract. You enlisted voluntarily. When you commit yourself to a course of action you follow it through. You don't whimp out because you couldn't be happy. You couldn't be happy in the Air Force so you up and quit. You couldn't be happy in college so you up and quit.

Doesn't say much for you does it. You seem to be a quitter.

You couldn't be happy in the Air Force. Big Fuckin' Deal. Who cares if you were happy. You signed a contract. You enlisted voluntarily. When you commit yourself to a course of action you follow it through. You don't whimp out because you couldn't be happy. You couldn't be happy in the Air Force so you up and quit. You couldn't be happy in college so you up and quit.

Doesn't say much for you does it. You seem to be a quitter.
*shrugs* I don't really care what you think about it. Never did.

It seems your "point of view" is already set. I'm just pointing out that it is incorrect. Otherwise, why all the rebuttals from you over something you know nothing about?
I'm not trying to rebut. I'm trying to integrate. But you wouldn't understand anything about the way I think, even though I've attempted to explain it to you several times. You will continue to think what you wish.

You said belief is absolute and not open to questioning.
Once again, I shall restate my position, the same position I stated before, the position I've held from the very beginning, The position you have trouble understanding, but still agree with. I said most people are absolutely certain in their basic belief as to whether God exists or not, and have a basic picture in their heads as to what He is, and that these things do not change lightly from day to day, week to week, year to year. Addended to that is the assertion that most of the time this happens, people don't change their basic stance, but reaffirm their previously held belief. You seem completely unwilling to articulate exactly where and how I'm wrong on this, only to bring in a vague, "personal experience," argument to prove me wrong. That is my position, and that is the only position I am taking at this point in time. If the word, "absolute," confuses you, you might try eliminating the word, because it doesn't really do anything in that context but qualify "certain." "Certain," means "without doubt," and the meaning isn't changed by "absolutely."


I said you were wrong and listed why I had questioned but still believed. Since I have questioned and am still a believer, then your "theory" is shot (unless you want to call me a liar).
Incorrect. You said I was wrong, and listed examples that would have proven a different position wrong, were I to have taken it. That position is, "People's beliefs do not change." I would not take such an indefensible position. I tried telling you you were proving somebody else wrong, but you still refuse to get it.

Would you like to debate what's it like to have a child? bury a parent? go through rough times during a long term marriage?
See, these are the sorts of things I've already taken account of and integrated into my position. I am well aware that the basic stance of people on the God question can change, and certain events can cause a person to change them, and I have already stated as such! Why do you continue to insist that I am wrong and you are right when we are both saying the exact same thing?!

I hate to break the news to you, but I am not trying to earn your respect.
I am well aware of that. My feelings of regret remain.

Not near as absurd as saying what a religious believer "thinks" from the viewpoint an atheist.
Yet you feel exactly the same way as I do! You even stated a basic acceptance of my position! How can you call it absurd if you think exactly the same way?

Remember... wisdom is knowing what you do not know.
Remember, cliches are bullshit repeated over and over until nobody knows what they mean anymore.

My initial post on this thread....

I have no problems with atheists (although I find the axiom "freethinker" somewhat puzzling). What I do have a problem with is that some atheists feel they have to "spread the word" that their lack of belief is correct and that any type of spirituality is wrong. These non-believers seem to thrive in goading people with their version of the "truth" constantly.

I also have a problem with religious fundamentalists that do the same thing, be they Christian, Muslim, etc.

If anyone is sure about these things, without a shadow of a doubt, then I question their ability to think on their own.

you chose challenge a part of this quote (unrelated to the main topic) with...

I personally find it very hard to believe that most people aren't absolutely sure about their spiritual issues, at least, here in the US. Ask anyone who goes to church regularly if they ever seriously entertain the notion that God doesn't exist. They typically say there were times when their faith is challenged. That is not the same thing. Most Christians don't even know what it means to seriously entertain the notion that their God doesn't exist.

This is the initial point you apparently wanted to disagree with me about... I stated that I feel your analysis is incorrect. Neither of us can know for sure (unless we can crawl into every believer's head and see what has ever went on there).

I stated that I know many people that had questioned and had even questioned it myself. You say that most people are absolute in their belief, I say that that is not true and that they may not want to admit it (even to themselves) but the human mind seldom (if ever) holds faith in anything that is above question at ALL points during one's journey through life.

Then it's been a "craw fish shuffle" from you on points both said and implied.

You think faith is absolute in most all believers over all their life, and I think that it is not. My biggest issue with your logic here is that you are NOT a believer, so how does this qualify you (and why would you desire) to argue over this issue?

I personally find it very hard to believe that most people aren't absolutely sure about their spiritual issues,
Okay, I will concede the fact that this particular part of the statement is misleading. But the previous discussion is based around atheists and theists, and in that context, the meaning of that statement, especially with the second part should be understood that I was referring to only the most basic level of belief. On top of that, I made myself crystal clear what I meant in the next post. There has been no "crawfish shuffle," only a misunderstanding on your part to grasp what I have repeatedly attempted to make clear as day, and a continuing effort by you to get me to defend the position that "people's beliefs don't change." You make it sound like I've been trying to hold both positions, alternating between them whenever it suits my purposes, but it's simply not true. I've held exactly one position, and you have misrepresented it.

You think faith is absolute in most all believers over all their life, and I think that it is not. My biggest issue with your logic here is that you are NOT a believer, so how does this qualify you (and why would you desire) to argue over this issue?
I make no claims to the specifics of people's faith, and what I have said concerns all people, not just believers. What I claim is the very likely scenario that while people might find their faith's challenged, their ideals questioned, their values threatened, most people do not seriously question the answer they have to the very basic question, "Does God exist, and if so, what is his basic nature?" It is something beyond faith, it is one of the most fundamental pillars on which a person builds his reality. If he were to question it willy nilly, he would have to go on about constructing an entirely new reality every time he considers swapping theologies. That's why it only happens in cases of extreme stress or to an event that forces him to question the basic nature of reality, and that's why most people, even when it does happen, elect to reassure themselves of their prior answer. The mundane realities preclude it from happening too often. People just aren't that flexible.

Wikipedia defines freethought as: a philosophical viewpoint that holds that beliefs should be formed on the basis of science and logical principles and not be compromised by authority, tradition, or any other dogma. So, if anyone here adheres to the particular philosophical viewpoint known as 'freethought', it would be the resident atheists, particularly the more vehement ones.

Precisely.

Simply because they do not care to 'play nice' does not make them any less freethinkers.

Thank you.

I make no denial of what certain posters here have noted (complaining that is driven by the fact that feelings are hurt due to their irrational supernaturalist beliefs being exposed for their insubstantiality) , i.e., that I miss no opportunity to poke fun at and revile superstitionists of all stripes.

:thumbs:

BTW, afinertouch.......great thread.

Glad to see someone finally drag these tired-assed myths out in the open and refute them.

BTW, afinertouch.......great thread.

Glad to see someone finally drag these tired-assed myths out in the open and refute them. Thanks.

Neither "atheist" nor "agnostic" is a proper noun, so stop capitalizing them. Also, please spell "atheist" correctly.


:YAWN:

I suppose you think religion is a necessary component of those rules and structure?

Your posts do vary from intelligent comments to vague innuendos.

Before I can answer your question you must define what you mean by religion. Do you just mean those many religions we recognize today? Baha'i, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. Or do you also include older religions such as the worship of Baal, Moloch (spellings may vary)? Did the tribes of the American Plains have a religion?

I find it hard to think of a society with rules and structure that is not based upon some form of religion. However, it may be possible for such a society to exist.

Thank you.

Wasn't really referring to societies here, just in the context you put it in, in the raising of a child. Do you think it's necessary for religion to be a part of a growing child's life, as a part of the rules and structure you mentioned?

Here's your quote. I have no desire to repeat my previous experience with page after page trying to get someone to understand exactly what I'm getting at.

Anyway, children need rules and structure. That's how they learn. As they age and begin to reason these rules will be challenged. The ability to reason will increase, the environment will change and the child will continually challenge the rules and structure. That is good. Parents and society must be prepared to respond and change as necessary. That's how we all improve.
However, if children are raised without rules and structure, then they are essentially in a state of chaos. They do not what is expected of them and get frustrated and unable to develop a logical basis for reasoning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogger
Damn, he couldn't hack the airforce. The airforce is for pussies.
lol

I just said, my brother was in the Airforce!

Um, I know you guys are just having a bit of fun, but I still feel the need to say, I know someone in the Airforce. He is anything but a pussy. He has done an extended tour in Afganistan. He can survive with next to nothing in almost any terrain or water. He can move through jungle with barely a sound and he can kill with his bare hands. And I am not joking.

They train to withstand G-force until they pass out. He kept all of his men alive while on tour. And damn but he looks amazing in uniform.

Also, airforce have to be able to think and respond quickly to whatever is happening not just take orders.

Just had to say, because this is a man I respect and admire even if he is 15 years my junior. I would trust him with my life and those are few and far between.

Those paratroopers aren't to be fucked with, for sure.

Um, I know you guys are just having a bit of fun, but I still feel the need to say, I know someone in the Airforce. He is anything but a pussy. He has done an extended tour in Afganistan. He can survive with next to nothing in almost any terrain or water. He can move through jungle with barely a sound and he can kill with his bare hands. And I am not joking.

They train to withstand G-force until they pass out. He kept all of his men alive while on tour. And damn but he looks amazing in uniform.

Also, airforce have to be able to think and respond quickly to whatever is happening not just take orders.

Just had to say, because this is a man I respect and admire even if he is 15 years my junior. I would trust him with my life and those are few and far between.

My apologies Sal,
I wasnt trying to say my brother or anyone else that is or has ever been in the Airforce was a pussy.
I was complaining because Frogger was basically saying my brother was a pussy.
Although, he made the statement at the same time I made my statement about my brother and it just seemed funny.

It's cultural;

I was career Army, and my older brother was Air Force. We both graduated our respective flight schools at about the same time, in early 1979.

The friendly 'bantering' that took place over the years ran along the lines of "You Army guys aren't very bright and your boots are always muddy," and "You Air Force pussies have it so easy, I'll bet you couldn't fly anything that didn't have air conditioning in it."

It was all good-natured ribbing, and nobody every got their feathers ruffled.
(No pun intended, Sal.)

:smile2:

My apologies Sal,
I wasnt trying to say my brother or anyone else that is or has ever been in the Airforce was a pussy.
I was complaining because Frogger was basically saying my brother was a pussy.
Although, he made the statement at the same time I made my statement about my brother and it just seemed funny.

Nah, Inviolable, no need to apologize, just wanted to acknowledge his efforts... :) but thanks for the sensitivity anyway.

It was all good-natured ribbing, and nobody every got their feathers ruffled.
(No pun intended, Sal.) *leaves a few feathers behind for Sparky*

What I claim is the very likely scenario that while people might find their faith's challenged, their ideals questioned, their values threatened, most people do not seriously question the answer they have to the very basic question, "Does God exist, and if so, what is his basic nature?"

You are 100% correct. From decades of experience interacting with Christian religionists of all stripes, it is beyond any doubt whatsoever that only a very small percentage of human beings ever dare to seriously question whether or not their "God" exists.

I have questioned it many times, Freethinker.

I have questioned it many times, Freethinker.
So have I ren, but I guess we are just odd-balls.:drinktoth

You would be correct.

So have I ren, but I guess we are just odd-balls.:drinktoth

No, not odd-balls, just the majority that he needs to ignore.

Majority my ass. Have you taken a look around you lately?

The loud and the rude always get their names in the paper.

Still tho, Nap, you have a legitimate point. The evangelical, fundamentalist Southern Baptists are the single largest group of Christians in the country.

The evangelical, fundamentalist Southern Baptists are the single largest group of Christians in the country.
Don't believe that fundamental's never question, most just will not admit it (publically at least).

Tha'ts most likely true, OP.

Most Christians I know, personally, do question. How can you not?
Even Thomas doubted--and he was there!

Don't believe that fundamental's never question, most just will not admit it (publically at least).
Why would they hide it? There's no real reason to.

Tha'ts most likely true, OP.

Most Christians I know, personally, do question. How can you not?
Even Thomas doubted--and he was there!
Thomas had more reasons than most, because he wasn't indoctrinated. Early Christians really did have to have faith, faith bordering on desperation. They didn't have two thousand years worth of Christian culture to fall back on.

But Christians today are quite secure in their belief. They know and believe that even if they stray a little, God will welcome them back into his fold the very second they want it. So they're a little more free to question. But it comes at the expense of realness. It's like playing poker without any real money riding on it. Nobody takes it seriously, unless they're a serious poker nut. But few are serious theologians. The indoctrination process makes it nigh impossible to really question.

As for Thomas, it would be easier to believe in Jesus if you had seen him preach and perform miracles in person than to only have read about it.

As far as fundamentalists questioning God, it would be "frowned upon" by the congregate at large. Large groups tend to stifle self expression (and even honesty at times) if there is a fear of condemnation and/or rejection.

Look only at other groups that may offer condemnation for a "offensive" belief (or non-belief). You can be a Green Bay Packers fan and actually hate Bart Starr and think he was a lousy Q-back. But I doubt that you would shout that out in the stands during a home game halftime award presentation honoring Starr. If you did, you would be ostracised (and possibly beaten) for your comments.

Most Christians are believers because they choose to, not because they are indoctrinated into a "cult" (as you seem to believe they are). Believing in a higher power does not short circuit the logical thought process. Actually the more I question anything, the more I realize I do not know enough, which encourages me to learn more, which leads to more questions, lather, rinse, repeat.

I would also add that if people are only believers because they were "told to" or due to "cultural stigma", then they are not true believers. Faith is a personal issue that cannot be force fed to a person. It can be nurtured, denounced, encouraged, vilified, etc. until the person submits either way.... but it is not "true" belief/non-belief until that person reconciles their own mind to it.

As for Thomas, it would be easier to believe in Jesus if you had seen him preach and perform miracles in person than to only have read about it.
First, you're assuming Jesus performed miracles at all. It's quite likely all the miracle stuff was written into the Bible post-fact, and that Jesus in fact was merely an incredibly charismatic fellow with a message of love and peace and a demeanor to match.

Second, I would argue that actually being there, in person, would make it much harder to make you believe someone is the actual son of god, in the flesh. Imagine your neighbor suddenly turning into Jesus. It would be very hard to not think he's a total nutjob. It would indeed be very hard to shake the feeling, even after he's amassed a cult following as Jesus did. And I'm using the term, "cult," loosely. Bruce Campbell has a cult following.

As far as fundamentalists questioning God, it would be "frowned upon" by the congregate at large. Large groups tend to stifle self expression (and even honesty at times) if there is a fear of condemnation and/or rejection.
If everybody's there by choice, and no one's been indoctrinated, then there should be no social pressure. Pick one or the other.

But I doubt that you would shout that out in the stands during a home game halftime award presentation honoring Starr.
You're totally mixing metaphor's here. Admitting to a not-so-close friend or acquaintance that you have seriously wondered about the possibility that God doesn't exist, is hardly shouting out in the stands during a halftime show.

Most Christians are believers because they choose to, not because they are indoctrinated into a "cult" (as you seem to believe they are). Believing in a higher power does not short circuit the logical thought process.
I never used the word, "cult." I don't think Christianity as a whole can be described as a cult, in the popular usage of the term. Individual congregations may or may not display cult-like qualities.

But religious indoctrination is real. You may be confusing me here. I do not equate indoctrination with brainwashing.

Sunday school is indoctrination. Military boot camp is indoctrination. Some corporate training seminars are indoctrination.

Believing in a higher power does not short circuit the logical thought process.
The more I learn about people, the more I realize that most people do not have a "logical thought process" to short-cut. But that's another argument for another time.

Believing in a higher power does not short circuit the logical thought process.

!?!?!?!

We have located the absolute bedrock point of disagreement between you and I.

I would say that the diametric opposite is the case.

Indoctrination, from a very early age, to 'believe in' "a higher power" ----and "angels" and "the Devil" and "the holy ghost" and "miracles" and "heaven" and "life everlasting" and all other preposterous doctrines of supernaturalist mumbo jumbo that are part and parcel of Christianity---- most certainly DOES short circuit the logical thought processes of human beings.

It is, at the heart of it, the reason that the religious meme is so unbelievably successful at propagating itself.

It is, at the heart of it, the reason that the religious meme is so unbelievably successful at propagating itself.


We've all seen your ability to be above "propaganda" yourself.

First, you're assuming Jesus performed miracles at all. It's quite likely all the miracle stuff was written into the Bible post-fact, and that Jesus in fact was merely an incredibly charismatic fellow with a message of love and peace and a demeanor to match.
But, I am a believer, I really don't just assume. You cannot use a preconditioned line of logic to argue faith. i.e. "Since God doesn't exist, and it's obvious to me, why do you believe?" I could just as easily ask "Since God exists, and it's obvious to me, why don't you believe?"

Second, I would argue that actually being there, in person, would make it much harder to make you believe someone is the actual son of god, in the flesh. Imagine your neighbor suddenly turning into Jesus. It would be very hard to not think he's a total nutjob. It would indeed be very hard to shake the feeling, even after he's amassed a cult following as Jesus did. And I'm using the term, "cult," loosely. Bruce Campbell has a cult following.
If you go under the assumption that he did no miracles, was not a divine entity, and that he was just a "cool dude", then I see your point.

If everybody's there by choice, and no one's been indoctrinated, then there should be no social pressure. Pick one or the other.
Social pressures exist in all aspects of life (with the possible exception of the internet... where you can be virtually anonymous). Social pressure does control many aspects of our public lives.

You're totally mixing metaphor's here. Admitting to a not-so-close friend or acquaintance that you have seriously wondered about the possibility that God doesn't exist, is hardly shouting out in the stands during a halftime show.

True, it may have much deeper consequences than the football analogy. If the person you mention it to was a fellow member of a conservative Christian church, and was used as a gossip tidbit, this could may make you the butt of jokes/harrasing from the judgemental (or even worse... the subject of the preacher's next sermon).

I never used the word, "cult." I don't think Christianity as a whole can be described as a cult, in the popular usage of the term. Individual congregations may or may not display cult-like qualities.

But religious indoctrination is real. You may be confusing me here. I do not equate indoctrination with brainwashing.
Some churches are cultish and I would not argue that at all. I would even go as far to say that some whole denominations smack of cult-like behavior and brainwashing.

****OldPhart analogy warning******

I was taught in baseball to always pitch from a 3/4 arm position and hit with my weight on my back foot. I started that way but evolved into a side-arm delivery and hit with my weight forward. In other words I was taught (one very general definition of indoctrination). I was not indoctrinated into not questioning my teaching, so therefore I experimented and found the way that I performed best. I was taught the same way in Christian beliefs. I was taught a traditional method (from my parents perspective) of practicing Christanity, but evolved into my own method.

The reason I assumed that you equate indoctrination as "brain-washing" is based on a standard atheistic argument. Like the one in this link:

http://atheistrevolution.blogspot.com/2005/12/on-indoctrination.html

Sunday school is indoctrination. Military boot camp is indoctrination. Some corporate training seminars are indoctrination.
I would state it more along the lines of "Some sunday school is indoctrination. Military boot camp is indoctrination. Some corporate training seminars are indoctrination". I would agree that with this.

The more I learn about people, the more I realize that most people do not have a "logical thought process" to short-cut. But that's another argument for another time.
I will assume that that was not a back-handed remark towards me.

I would agree that there are many people that are missing almost all thought processes (logical and other) and I seem to have to drive with them in my commute to/from work every day.

!?!?!?!

We have located the absolute bedrock point of disagreement between you and I.

I would say that the diametric opposite is the case.

Indoctrination, from a very early age, to 'believe in' "a higher power" ----and "angels" and "the Devil" and "the holy ghost" and "miracles" and "heaven" and "life everlasting" and all other preposterous doctrines of supernaturalist mumbo jumbo that are part and parcel of Christianity---- most certainly DOES short circuit the logical thought processes of human beings.

It is, at the heart of it, the reason that the religious meme is so unbelievably successful at propagating itself.
Yes, I think this is a definitive "opposing issue" that defines both of us.

The difference is...

You cannot tolerate that I (and others) are believers, think that I (and others) have no logical thought processes at all because of that, and attack all those that do not share your disbelief in God as illogical and mindless sheep.

I do not know enough to say that my belief is the only way, or even the best way. I just know what I feel. I do not attack others who believe another way (or do not believe at all) unless I see bigotry and hatred. (I will even denounce Christians of that... see the Shreveport, LA post).

I have respect (I know... we differ in the definition of that also) for many posters here, yourself included. While I may not (or seldom ever, in some cases) always agree with peoples opinions, the consistancy and veracity of the arguments allow me to see though other "eyes".

I do not know everything, or even pretend to, except my thoughts and experiences that life has given me. I post here for the lively debate, the chance to see other peoples perspectives on things, and to occasionally spit out the stale corny joke (sorry for those).

But, I am a believer, I really don't just assume. You cannot use a preconditioned line of logic to argue faith. i.e. "Since God doesn't exist, and it's obvious to me, why do you believe?" I could just as easily ask "Since God exists, and it's obvious to me, why don't you believe?"
Because you believe, you are assuming. You just don't call it that.

An assumption is a proposition that is taken for granted, in other words, that is treated for the sake of a given discussion as if it were known to be true.

If you go under the assumption that he did no miracles, was not a divine entity, and that he was just a "cool dude", then I see your point.
This is why I believe that the whole of Christianity rests on Jesus's miracles. The entirety of all those 2000 years of culture, social influence, holy wars, morality, all rests on a bunch of tall tales. If he didn't do them, Christianity would fall apart like a house of cards, and no one would ever have believed and it certainly wouldn't have become the massive religion it is today. There would remain no logical reason to believe in God, only subjective ones. It's the one thing evangelists come back to again and again to wow people into believing. How could anyone believe Jesus was the son of God without miracles!? That's why I think they were written in after the fact. And if they made that up, why not the whole Jesus figure too?

True, it may have much deeper consequences than the football analogy. If the person you mention it to was a fellow member of a conservative Christian church, and was used as a gossip tidbit, this could may make you the butt of jokes/harrasing from the judgemental (or even worse... the subject of the preacher's next sermon).
Ah, yes! I am unaccustomed to the realities of living in such a tribal mentality.


I was taught in baseball to always pitch from a 3/4 arm position and hit with my weight on my back foot. I started that way but evolved into a side-arm delivery and hit with my weight forward. In other words I was taught (one very general definition of indoctrination). I was not indoctrinated into not questioning my teaching, so therefore I experimented and found the way that I performed best. I was taught the same way in Christian beliefs. I was taught a traditional method (from my parents perspective) of practicing Christanity, but evolved into my own method.
Indoctrination is the teaching of doctrine. Doctrine is dogma, coda, principles, positions, all referent to a particular belief system. It is to be distinguished from education. In education, one is encouraged to stand outside a body of knowledge and analyze it. In indoctrination, one stands within the body and absorbs it. Most of the education you received growing up in religion was probably indoctrination.

I would state it more along the lines of "Some sunday school is indoctrination. Military boot camp is indoctrination. Some corporate training seminars are indoctrination". I would agree that with this.
Going by my clarified definition of indoctrination, one quoted from Wikipedia, I'm sure you will agree that all Sunday School is indoctrination too.

Yes, I think this is a definitive "opposing issue" that defines both of us.

The difference is...

You cannot tolerate that I (and others) are believers, .....

I could "tolerate" it perfectly, with no trouble whatsoever, IF the religionist faction in this country kept it to themselves and did not insist that the rest of the citizenry join them in believing and in obeying their irrational taboos and prohibitions.

......think that I (and others) have no logical thought processes at all because of that, ......

I would not say "no logical thought processes at all".........but simply that whatever *logical thought processes* you and other brainwashed-to-think-gawd-is-real brethren might have ever possessed were short circuited way back when you were first infected with the religious meme.


.....and attack all those that do not share your disbelief in God as illogical and mindless sheep.

True. I do.


I do not know enough to say that my belief is the only way, or even the best way. I just know what I feel. I do not attack others who believe another way (or do not believe at all)

Well, gee whiz!.....how incredibly BIG of you. :rolleyes:

Since 85% or more of the populace shares your chosen supernatural fantasy, and fully supports your "god" beliefs, you magnanimously decide to suffer the once-in-a-blue-moon criticism that those who are sane have for your superstition.

What a guy!!

I do not know everything, or even pretend to, except my thoughts and experiences that life has given me.

Riiiiiiiiiiiight. Never let it be said that the Xtian religious faction in America **pretend to know everything**.............:rolleyes:

Give me a break.

All that you and other religionists/superstitionists of your ilk claim to have is the all-powerful 'Creator of the Universe' on your side, and the indisputable and inerrrant truth of his "holy book" to forever bolster said belief.

Because you believe, you are assuming. You just don't call it that.

An assumption is a proposition that is taken for granted, in other words, that is treated for the sake of a given discussion as if it were known to be true.
But that same argument can be turned around to you... circular so therefore pointless. You don't believe, therefore you are assuming, you call it atheism.


This is why I believe that the whole of Christianity rests on Jesus's miracles. The entirety of all those 2000 years of culture, social influence, holy wars, morality, all rests on a bunch of tall tales. If he didn't do them, Christianity would fall apart like a house of cards, and no one would ever have believed and it certainly wouldn't have become the massive religion it is today. There would remain no logical reason to believe in God, only subjective ones. It's the one thing evangelists come back to again and again to wow people into believing. How could anyone believe Jesus was the son of God without miracles!? That's why I think they were written in after the fact. And if they made that up, why not the whole Jesus figure too?
In miracles, teachings, and divinity. Yes I would agree with that. Otherwise it would be called "Revisionist Judeism" or something to that effect (since Christ is the basis of Christianity). There again, belief versus non-belief. You believe it was all made up and written in after the fact, I do not.

Ah, yes! I am unaccustomed to the realities of living in such a tribal mentality.
I was being sarcastic there... I guess I should use emoticons or something.

Indoctrination is the teaching of doctrine. Doctrine is dogma, coda, principles, positions, all referent to a particular belief system. It is to be distinguished from education. In education, one is encouraged to stand outside a body of knowledge and analyze it. In indoctrination, one stands within the body and absorbs it. Most of the education you received growing up in religion was probably indoctrination.
Some was "indoctrination", but I was taught to question and make my own decisions (I guess I had heretics for parents). Indoctrination is a vague term, as is doctrine. It ranges from "teaching" to "brainwashing" in it's meaning. It also has garnished a negative connotation (and well deserved based on some of some religious "teachings"). Take primitive fundamentalists or radical Islamists as examples of that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/indoctrination

Going by my clarified definition of indoctrination, one quoted from Wikipedia, I'm sure you will agree that all Sunday School is indoctrination too.
Based on Wiki and the first dictionary.com definition, I would still say that some Sunday School is indoctrination. Probably depending on the church, denomination, and the teacher themselves.

That is like saying that all Christian churches can't have women pastors. Many do not allow it, but many do. Generalizations.

I could "tolerate" it perfectly, with no trouble whatsoever, IF the religionist faction in this country kept it to themselves and did not insist that the rest of the citizenry join them in believing and in obeying their irrational taboos and prohibitions.
I ask, when have I ever said you should join the ranks of believers?


I would not say "no logical thought processes at all".........but simply that whatever *logical thought processes* you and other brainwashed-to-think-gawd-is-real brethren might have ever possessed were short circuited way back when you were first infected with the religious meme.
Wow, that's awful open minded of you. I see why you call yourself "Freethinker"

True. I do.
Never called you a liar there FT, you ARE consistent. All I question is why you attack me? Because I do not share your disbelief? or because you think I'm "gunning" for you? To be honest, I really don't care what your spiritual system is (none, I know). I just wonder why you categorize and hate people like myself so much.




Well, gee whiz!.....how incredibly BIG of you. :rolleyes:

Since 85% or more of the populace shares your chosen supernatural fantasy, and fully supports your "god" beliefs, you magnanimously decide to suffer the once-in-a-blue-moon criticism that those who are sane have for your superstition.
Ooookkkaaaayyy... just call me crazy then . :)

What a guy!!
Thanks, FT!


Riiiiiiiiiiiight. Never let it be said that the Xtian religious faction in America **pretend to know everything**.............:rolleyes:

Give me a break.

All that you and other religionists/superstitionists of your ilk claim to have is the all-powerful 'Creator of the Universe' on your side, and the indisputable and inerrrant truth of his "holy book" to forever bolster said belief.
BTW... I'm not a inerrant Bible believer.

I doubt my beliefs fit in the majority of Christians in the US (especially here in the Bible Belt). I have no "side" here on allforums. I would venture a guess that I am in the minority here in my belief structure. I am a mostly white(1/4 Cherokee), heterosexual, southern, Christian, man. I do not hate other races, sexual orientations, yankees (lol), non-Christians, or women. Nor do I hate you. When I say that I do not know everything, that is no lie or proud proclamation, just a fact.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
What you know, you know, won't hurt you. What you know, you don't know, won't hurt you. What you don't know, you know, won't hurt you. It's what you don't know, you don't know, that's a problem.

But that same argument can be turned around to you... circular so therefore pointless. You don't believe, therefore you are assuming, you call it atheism.
You don't assume a negative. Negative is the starting point. You have to prove a positive. Taking a positive for granted is assumption. Taking a negative for granted is skepticism. It's not the same thing.


You believe it was all made up and written in after the fact, I do not.
See above point.

Indoctrination is a vague term, as is doctrine.
It just has yet to be hammered down succinctly. The meaning is explored quite adequately in the wiki page.

It ranges from "teaching" to "brainwashing" in it's meaning.
The difference between education and indoctrination is where you are standing in relation to the material you are being taught. A certain amount of indoctrination is necessary, such as when you teach students the basics of science. But after the basics, everything afterward is expected to be held up to the rigor of critical thought. But all of religious teaching is indoctrination, and very little of it, as it is taught in America today, may be subjected to critical thought. There is an award winning documentary on the subject, it's called Jesus Camp. You can watch it on YouTube.

Based on Wiki and the first dictionary.com definition, I would still say that some Sunday School is indoctrination. Probably depending on the church, denomination, and the teacher themselves.
*shakes head sadly* Here is that definition from dictionary.com.

1. to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.

If you don't think Sunday School fits that very definition, notice the part that begins with "imbue" is qualified by the word, "especially," then I am going to have to conclude you to be too thick-headed to continue. Maybe you didn't catch the "especially" part and understood it's effect on the definition.

That is like saying that all Christian churches can't have women pastors. Many do not allow it, but many do. Generalizations.
No, it isn't. Sunday school clearly fits the definition of indoctrination, both the Wiki version and the dictionary.com definition.

If you don't think Sunday School fits that very definition, notice the part that begins with "imbue" is qualified by the word, "especially," then I am going to have to conclude you to be too thick-headed to continue. Maybe you didn't catch the "especially" part and understood it's effect on the definition.

Wow, thanks! I always thought my skull to be a bit thin. I cannot prove that I am right or you are wrong. Likewise, you cannot prove you are right and I am wrong. Your experiences in Sunday School are not the same as mine. You may have been "indoctrinated" in your experience, but that does not mean that I was in mine. For a bit of information, I did not attend Church from the time I was 21 till I was 40. I didn't lose faith, I just lost the desire to participate in the organized worship. I attend a very small , quite liberal Church now. My wife and I also are Sunday School teachers. We both teach, question, discuss, and debate... she with kids, I with adults.

Maybe I'm the "Indoctrinator"!

"Ah'll be Bach" (a sad Arnold impersonation)

Peace

Oh I have proven it quite handily. You simply refuse to accept it, based on your admittedly small experience, remaining purposefully ignorant of what goes on in the rest of the country. And even your own experience bears it out, but you still refuse to accept it, relying on the tack, "You can't prove it, and I can't prove it, so there!" My argument is sound, you have no argument.

Ummm.... OK.

I bow to your flawless inellect and master(de)bating "skillz".

I can only hope that I can one day aquire just an iota of the wisdom and experience that you currently possess, especially in relation to the Christian belief system and life in general.

Again, I stand in awe of your great wisdom... no, really... complete awe.

I got kicked out of Sunday School. :eek:

PS. My big sis, age about 11, was kicked out of Sunday School herself, for deliberately blocking the toilets in the girls' washroom and making them overflow. She later left the money Grandma had given her for the collection plate on the sink as a "tip" for the janitor.

She wasn't exactly kicked out, but was asked to think about the trouble she'd caused while staying away for a few weeks.

Poor Grandma like to die from embarrassment.

Ummm.... OK.

I bow to your flawless inellect and master(de)bating "skillz".

I can only hope that I can one day aquire just an iota of the wisdom and experience that you currently possess, especially in relation to the Christian belief system and life in general.

Again, I stand in awe of your great wisdom... no, really... complete awe.
And here it comes again. Honestly, you people are entirely too predictable.