Indoctrination

This. Basically i meant physical proof as in, if god was PHYSICALLY real you could touch him, hear him, see him, etc.

And i meant automatically indoctrinated the way you said it. Obviously I'm not a Christian the second i came out of my mom. But once i developed I was indoctrinated.

 

Nope, sorry to burst your bubble.

I am not even close to Athiest, but honestly.

Your body stops functioning. which means there's nothing. you cannot think about where you are or anything when you are dead.

They take your body, and leave it to rot in the earth.

Your exsistince is completely gone.

 

You say this as if it HAS to be true. Yes, your brain stops sending signals and your body fails, but the faithful (religious) believe that your body is a mere shell to your spirit which moves onto heaven or moves to another shell (reincarnation). As mentioned before, you are proving something with zero evidence against it (heaven/reincarnation), thus i can easily deny your claim that there is nothing after this life.

 

Atheism is as much of a belief as not watching football is a sport. You are all born Atheists - we do not magically all consider that a magical man that is in the sky pulls strings to make stuff go. We are born not believing that a God exists; thus, we are born Atheists. Your brain rejects such fallacies, unless it is broken into being a Religious slave, as many of you have been from a young age.

Why do you think so many people stick to one Religion, rather than switching Religions, or that the most popular Religion varies from country to country? Answer: The predominant Religion reflects society's certain indoctrination. If Religion was logical, there would be an evenly distributed amount of separate Religions in each country (for example, if there were only two Religions, Islam and Christianity would be roughly divided in half among Americans.) Instead, the majority of Religious Americans are Christian, and the majority of Religious Muslims are in Asia. They did not just decide a particular Religion was logical in mass amounts according to ethnicity. This is because of individual societies' indoctrination. If there were no Churches, no Bibles / Kuran / other fairy tales, and nobody to say there were, we would all be Atheists.

 

If there were no Churches, bibles, and so on as stated there would be no proof of a God. Atheism denies the existence of a God, of a being higher than our own. In order to deny something, you must know of it to deny such a thing. We are born believing nothing until we are taught. You do not pop out of the womb and believe "hey, there is no God." What you do know is that your in a strange world and things are happening really quickly. Whatever you are taught is what you will believe. Without being taught about God, how could you deny his existence? Without being taught that God exists, how can you be Christian? Both require knowledge on the being that is God, knowledge that is not inherent from birth.

So, to say that a baby/child denies the existence of a God implies that they were taught what God was and they chose or were told not to believe in it. A baby's brain cannot comprehend what is or is not a fallacy because they do not understand the world. For all they know, unicorns could exist and some kids DO believe that. No one is born intelligent enough to deny anything because they do not understand anything about the world. This means that they were born ignorant of all beliefs, but are formed into a belief by the knowledge put upon them.

 

Okay, I should have elaborated. Babies are not born Religious. Babies are not born denying the existence of a God; rather, they are not acknowledging either. If there were no churches, no fairy tales, and nobody to speak of either, we would all not believe in God. Specific enough?

 

1. It is true, most religious people start out at a young age, indoctrinated.

BUT

2. Neither Tgump or Sythe would understand because It doesn't really like like either of you grew up with any type of religion. Maybe Easter Bunny did but I have a much different view on things because of the way I was raised.

As far as Christianity beliefs, not I or anyone cannot prove "god is real". I won't win the argument either because you guys only want scientifical evidence when there is non. Only Christians and those who have kept an open mind and a strong faith understand it. I don't know what else to say.

 

..what? Since when did keeping an "open mind" entail the blind acceptance of things, for which no proof exists?

 

Exactly >.>
I was raised Christian, but luckily I was open-minded enough to renounce my faith when I was 7.

 

Believing in Santa isn't healthy? So its not healthy just because science says he doesn't exist?

Scripture:
1. A sacred writing or book.
2. A passage from such a writing or book.
3. The sacred writings of the Bible. Often used in the plural. Also called Holy Scriptures.

Farce:
1. a light, humorous play in which the plot depends upon a skillfully exploited situation rather than upon the development of character.
2. humor of the type displayed in such works.
3. foolish show; mockery; a ridiculous sham.

The Bible is definitely a scripture since it is a sacred writing or book. Also, I do not see how it is a farce. If you meant to say that it is more of a fairy tale than a true recount of previous events then it is completely possible. No one has ever proven that the Bible is right.

No, faith is not believing in something "blindly," it is believing in something to better your life or the life of others. Blindly would suggest going in without any recognition of the truth behind it, but plenty of people do. The fact is, religion is not based on scientific fact, it is based on centuries of belief in a higher power to make oneself happier and feel better about the world.

Just because evidence is turned up everyday trying to prove against all religion does not mean that people will stop believing. Religion has saved lives, turned bad into good in more cases than i can count.

Simply because something is proven incorrect does not make it a wrong thing to do or believe in.

I believe he meant keeping an open mind to it as it not denying it outright because it has no proof. This use of the word blind suggests that those who go into religion are oblivious to the proof, and they are not. The proof is seen and heard but denied because it would take away a huge, comforting factor in the life of the religious.

Faith. To take something on faith you do not require proof, correct? Putting your faith in something would mean that you are trusting it, believing in it. Those who put their faith in Christianity, and any other religion who believes in an omnipotent being, are doing so to comfort themselves and benefit their lives. Proof is not needed for something that works (if Tylenol worked but no one knew why, would you use it?) and those that try to disprove it are, although they are trying to explain the truth, taking something away from people that has given them hope, happiness, and success for millennia.

 

Atheism –noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Belief has multiple definitions, one of which is "something believed; an opinion or conviction" which in this case i was using to illustrate my point.

From the moment you are born, you are a vessel for a developing mind. You, at this moment, do not believe in something without reason because it is the logical thing to do. I never said there was no reason behind the belief, or opinion, or whatever you wish to call it. Reason could be anything. So yes, there is reason, i have never denied that.

Atheism is not the ABSENCE of belief of god, it is the refusal to accept the belief of God. With the absence of belief of God theory, a Pastafarian (yes... pasta) would be an atheist because they believe that the "flying spaghetti monster" created this world. With the absence of belief of God you could be many things that do not believe in the "typical" God. In order to declare your disbelief, then you must have knowledge, which is not inherent when you are born. Thus, a child must be taught about said subject in order to understand it and declare his disbelief.

This argument between us is completely based on relevant definition. I thank you for correcting me, as much of a technicality as it may be, on my usage of believe. But this vocabulary correction does not change my opinion, it simply would change how i state it.

 

Yeah, was more of a vocabulary mix up. Different people, different definitions.

Sorry, looked back at that sentence and it makes sense to me but then again, if a write couldn't understand himself/herself than thats weird. I meant that instead of Atheism being the "absence of a belief of God," then it is the refusal to believe in God. All of this rotates around our definitions, you see it as a passive idea whereas i see it as a proactive approach.

And thirdly... definition!!! I see this argument going more toward what does Atheism TRULY mean (<--- dumbest argument ever to have in this thread). So i'll end with the fact that i believe that if you do not declare the disbelief, whether to yourself or to others, then there is nothing that says you disbelieve in God.

 

I think that there's two types of atheism. Firstly, the type you just mentioned - a passive mindset which can even be said to be agnosticism. The second type is once the person has already been introduced to a religion, and he/she makes a choice to restart - or resume -- their previous atheistic beliefs. The latter is definitely active.

 

What? And what gives you the authority to question someone giving a legitimate answer? From what we know, when we die, our bodies cease to function and this is what causes us to rot. Believing that there is a heaven/hell is completely up to who wants to.
If you questioned the soundness of his argument according to his non-belief to a heaven/hell, what makes you think there is a heaven/hell.
Just because you believe in something doesn't make someone else wrong for not believing it. That is plain ignorance.

 

Actually, I had misread his post - that's why I deleted mine. I thought he was asserting that that is what happens when someone dies.

 

Christianity = good choice; It's not indoctrination, it's connection.

 

Which brings in the fear of being alone.

 

Really?

What definition of indoctrination are you referring to?

Millions of Americans damage the logic processing part of the brain of their children at a young age in order to get them to believe fairy tales such as Christianity and the Easter Bunny. This is a fantastic example of indoctrination.

 

Actually, that's a fantastic example of insanity.

 

Actually, it's a fantastic example of both.