₦airaland Forum

KingEbukasBlog:
Of course there are religions that are non-theistic who have no God figure as their reason or source of morality but this does not change the fact morality has been from a religious standpoint not a philosophical one since the beginning of human existence .

In fact , morality from a non-theistic religious standpoint stemmed from an already existing theistic religious standpoint as we can see in non-theistic religions like Buddhism , Confucianism etc .

You have made no reason , not even just an empty claim that man being a moral agent is a philosophical one

Moral agency is a philosophical classification and NOT a religious one. A moral agent is simply a person
a being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong according to wikipedia.

The classification that man is a moral agent is a philosophical classification.

The claim that morality stems from religion or that morality points to any God isn't universally accepted. So what exactly are you on about?

KingEbukasBlog:
Morality- the sense of right and wrong- was defined by moral laws and rules set forth by different gods in religion (a God-given ability ) . Its a common religious belief that man's morality points towards the existence of God and God is a moral law giver as an epitome for moral goodness . Man being moral has been dealt with from a religious perspective before philosophy came on board . Philosophy only scrutinizes the moral principles of a culture or religion or whatever in a branch called Ethics .

Again I repeat the claim that man is a moral agent is a philosophical one.

It is NOT true that all religions believe that morality points towards the existence of God because there are some religions that lack a God figure. So another fail.

The claim that morality points to the existence of God is not universally accepted by all religions because some religions lack a God figure. You've failed.

KingEbukasBlog:
Religion came before philosophy . Religion came as man became a moral agent . Morality has been a part of religious doctrines since ab initio mundi

The claim that man is a moral agent isn't a religious one but a philosophical one so fail. Morality being part of belief is not the same as the philosophical claim that man is a moral agent. Saying that man is a.moral agent is not a religious claim but a philosophical one.

KingEbukasBlog:
Religion agrees that man is a moral agent and morality in humanity is a universally accepted truth . Can I rest now ?

Man being a moral agent isn't a religious claim but a philosophical one.

KingEbukasBlog:
Not all scientific truths are universally accepted - yu do realize that you agreed to this .

Sure, but some are . Compared that to religuon that has none at all. NO religious truth is universally accepted.

KingEbukasBlog:
There are some religious beliefs about a finite universe and all scientific evidence lends credence to that . There are some religious beliefs about intelligent design and we through science we discovered the complexity of nature Eg cell , dna , genetics etc all points to an intelligent source . Our knowledge of mathematics (There are mathematical truths ) points to the existence of a mind behind the universe since mathematical objects are mind-dependent and our universe is mathematically structured . If you believe reason is a source of knowledge , we have through reason able to justify religious beliefs . We have archaeology to verify events and characters in religious books . Again , what are you saying

Where is the scientific consensus that shows that the universe is finite? Will there ever be a time when the universe will cease to exist and there will be nothing?

Where is the universal scientific consensus on intelligent design?


Again which religious claim has scientific backing that has universal acceptance ? You are yet to name any.

KingEbukasBlog:
Science has been to buttress religious beliefs , history can also be used to buttress religious beliefs . What are you even saying Science can be used to discover some truths , not all truths .

Science can be used to buttress witch religious belief that has universal acceptance?

JackBizzle:
You sabi remix

He is Mr lie lie spinner.

butterflyl1on:
Show some dignity when lying.

This is one of such comments from reddit by an atheist.

I would love to post all but dropping the link and anyone who goes through it honestly would see that indoctrination is a core acceptance among atheists.

Anything but religion! Teach them anything but religion

How many atheist there through their comments agree with childhood indoctrination? So far you've only been able to post the comment of on while I've posted the comments of about 5 that totally disagree. Majority of the comments there totally disagree with indoctrination so why are you telling lies?

KingEbukasBlog:
Religion has none ? There are diverse religions with different beliefs , practices . And what is knowledge ? Justified true belief . Are you saying that no belief in religion has been justified ? And justification leads to truth

Yes religion has none. I said science remains the only thing that has truth that are objectively verified and universally accepted by anybody that looks into it. Religion has NONSENSE of that.

butterflyl1on:
Your last comment supports all that has been said on this thread.

Everything you say is strictly Your Own opinion. You are trying to force us to believe that indoctrination is solely a religious thing but that has been shown to be absolutely untrue.
Even atheists on reddit which link I posted encourage the indoctrination of their kids against religion. This they either do suggestively or outrightly through a well tailored curriculum which would ensure they maintain the family atheist position.

Will you stop telling lies. I posted their comments here for all to see. All of them were against childhood indoctrination. You thought we won't go there and actually read what they wrote?

Indoctrination is in all shades and colours. Sometimes it is subtle and sometimes it is bold. As long as IDEAS, KNOWLEDGE, OPINIONS are being shared from a higher source to a lower recipient indoctrination is in process.

Lies. Many typea of Knowledge and ideas are always shared without any indoctrination.

You say you aren't an evolutionist but if I ask you if you are a creationist you would say you are not but yet are skeptical of a creator God as depicted in the Bible but does your skepticism of Yahweh mean the creation did not occur since its only Yahweh you are agnostic to?

If you are agnostic to a creator God that means you are not pro creation which would mean that there is only one place to lean to which contrasts creation and that is evolution. (hope I did not confuse you).

You can only confuse yourself. I do not believe in creationism and evolution because they both luck evidence to support them period. Period.

How many scientific claims have you personally verified in a lab?

List them please.

Diffusion and Osmosis
Effectivemeds of anti bacteria soaps
Pollination
Light
Static electricity
Voltage regulation using diode
Electical resistance
Sound
Evaporation and it's effects

These were some of the science experiments that were carried out in my secondary school with results that I was able to verify by myself.

KingEbukasBlog:
"Train up a child in the way he should grow " - trust me every parent religious , theistic , atheistic will train up his child in his own ways . Every child in indoctrinated in accordance to the beliefs of the parents religious or not . Many atheist parents have also revealed they indoctrinate their kids too . Every parent indoctrinates his or her child .

I am an atheist and my children are not atheist. I've never indoctrinated them with anything about atheism so your whole assertion is false.

KingEbukasBlog:
Bible inerrancy does not mean that whatever happened in the bible happened literally. . They've been discussions about Noah's ark story and many have pointed out that the story can be found in other cultures outside the Jewish one.

Did the Noah's story happen literally or not? Which historical study did you take that showed you that it is true?

butterflyl1on:
Even on reddit your fellow atheists admit to indoctrinating their kids


https://amp.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/3w8dqg/atheistic_indoctrination/

Did you think we will not go though the link to see it for ourselves or what? Why do you tell lies openly like this? Where do this he atheist admit that they indoctrinate their kids? Here are the comments from there that show that you lie shamelessly.

/NarhenDec 10, 2015, 7:18 AM
I've had trouble with this. I firmly hold atheism or non-affiliation to be the true way of life. I know i'm right. And I want my children to live the same life. But isn't that one of the things that we as atheists despise of religion? If I were to do this, am I no better? What do you think?

u/OldWolf2642 • Dec 10, 2015, 7:33 AM
Just to be 'that' guy: there is no such thing as atheist indoctrination. We have no dogma or 'holy text', no centralised forum or governing body.

What we do, what ANY person should do, is educate and nurture our children. Not force our own views and opinions on them.

Education is critical.

u/teh_mooses • Dec 10, 2015, 7:20 AM
I think you should do the "right" thing - which is allow your children to make up their own minds. When they get old enough to ask questions, answer them as best as you can.

Remember that children, no matter how much we as humans want this to be false, are not extensions of yourself. They are their own unique people. I'd no more be disappointed that my son decided to become Christian then I would be disappointed if he were gay.

u/materhern • Dec 10, 2015, 8:03 AM
I have kids and this is an easy one. Don't tell them what to believe. Allow them to question your beliefs and develop their own. My kids believed in god or gods in various ways as they were growing up. Getting into their teenage years, they've slowly started questioning why they believe in anything super natural and naturally are giving it up.

But in all reality, your kids look to you for guidance and put more stock in what you say versus other people. It is impossible to not indoctrinate or brainwash kids in some form or fashion. Especially when they are younger and everything you say is gospel truth.

u/LeannaBard • Dec 10, 2015, 9:29 AM
The thing is, you don't really have to do anything to influence your kids into an atheistic worldview. It's the default state, and as long as they aren't indoctrinated with religion and they are rational thinkers, the default is probably where they'll stay.

Of course, you can indoctrinate a kid against religions, and I don't think this should be done. But whether you're religious or not, you should teach your kids how to think instead of what to think so they are well equipped to make an informed decision of their own accord. I'm sure we all hope our kids turn out to believe the same things we do. Obviously we believe we're right or we wouldn't believe that way! But recognizing that it's okay if that doesn't happen and being tolerant of their differences is what really matters.

u/Dudesan • Dec 10, 2015, 9:45 AM
The fun thing about atheism is that it doesn't require any indoctrination, threats, or lies to promote.

If you teach your kids a healthy respect for inquiry, scepticism, curiosity, intellectual honesty, and appreciating the world as it is rather than as they wish it was, they'll probably figure out the whole "atheism" thing on their own.

Non of the people that commented agreed that children should be indoctrinated with atheism. Rather the OP who was honest to state that childhood indoctrination is bad and if he were to do it with his kids will make him look like religious people was advised by all not to do it.

Their comments show that you are a liar.

butterflyl1on:
Proverbs 22:6 never specified anything particular for a child but expects that the parents should know what is best for the child which is why it says TRAIN UP a child.

Proverbs 22:6 clearly shows the impact of childhood indoctrination. It says "train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from from it".


The part in bold doesn't need more elaboration.

Also you forgot something. Now that you are no longer a "christian" as it were, this means a different set of indoctrinations pushed out Christianity.

False, I was made to accept stories, tales and narratives that have NO evidence as facts, I tried to verify them for myself and discovered they have no substance to them and I discarded them. I now accept them for what they are. Made up stories that have no evidence to support them. That is what they are in reality but in the world of indoctrination I was made to accept them as truths and facts even when they have no evidence to support them at all.

There is absolutely no vacuum in life. Something always replaces another. One form of indoctrination over another.

This remains your own empty claims and opinion.

You talk about science and truths but if I ask you how many of such scientific truths you have PERSONALLY verified I am sure it would be so few.

Even if they are few, I have been able to verify some unlike when I was religious. I was unable to verify even one truth claim of what I was indoctrinated. As a christian there was no truth claim that I was able to verify personally. I was told to accept things only on their stated claims not based o what I have been able yo verify oersonally and was told that it is a virtue and was deceived and told that blessed are those that believe without seeing.

Like the evolution angle I mentioned earlier. Do you have any personal proof for evolution besides what is found in text books and what you read about online from scientists?

And I told you that I believe in evolution when and where?

Atheists say man indoctrinated Christians but they forget that scientists are also men and wrote books for the singular purpose of teaching (indoctrinating) a WILLING audience of which most if not all the things found in those books are never actually self verified by their readers.

Some scientific claims can be verified by all that look into them personally. I can enter the lab and carry out some experiments myself and verify some claims. As a believer I had no means of verifying ANYTHING I was told. No God for example ever appeared to me and told me anything about any claim. Even when I believed in prayers as a means of communication I prayed and no God answered me to verify anythingI put forward to it.

No means of verifing any truth claim. All I had to make do with is accepting the claims based on faith which I know is nothing but believing something b cause you only what it to be true and not because it is actually true.

If you frown at Religion do you also frown at Religion motivated morals? I have seen and read a lot of atheists say they hold religion based morals to high esteem as it is the only kind of morals that actually does make sense for them to use even among their children.

What has religious indoctrination got to do with morality? Morality is a human invention and it exist with or without religion. Before christianity was invented for example people were living moral lives. There are good and bad religious morals just as there are good and bad secular morals in my opinion.

Here is an example of such a confession of atheist indoctrination

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/christianity-children-confirmation-schooling-atheist-parenting-a7627086.html?amp

This is an extract from the website



Also here is a former atheist, a biochemist Sy Garte. This is what he had to say about atheist indoctrination.

https://escapingatheism.com/2017/05/11/sy-garte-biochemist-escapes-atheism/


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvUhWkuCQH4

What am I to do with the opinion of these people? It means nothing to me because it is not universal unlike christianity where kids MUST be indoctrinated at early age for it to make sense to them and also remain and practice the religion. I am an atheist an I do not indoctrinate my children with anything. Their mum is indoctrinating them with the christian stories and belief system.

Somebody mumu no dey ever do.

JackBizzle:
Felixomoron, I take god beg you, free this thread. We dont need additional foolishness. I kneel down beg you.

KingEbukasBlog:
Not all scientific truths are universally acceptable . Anyway , what qualifies as a religious truth ? Define the term 'religious truth'

It is true that it is not all scientific truths that are universally accepted but science remains the only things that has truth that are objectively verified and universally accepted. Religion has NONE, and that is why indoctrination remains the only way it gains adherents. Childhood indoctrination remains the greatest weapon religion has in its arsenal.

J.D. Brucker in one of his books that I read talked about childhood indoctrination as thegreatest weaponreligion has in its arsenal. I'll copy and paste a lot of what he wrote down in his book while adding my own thoughts to his own. I'll simply state why childhood indoctrination is the main reason people still stick to Christianity.

Afterall even the bible acknowledges the importance of childhood indoctrination when it says that:

Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is old he will not depart from it. Poverbs 22:6

When you properly indoctrinate a child even when he grows he'll hardly depart from it. That is what christianity and all religions use to increase their numbers and make sure that people still believe. Childhood indoctrination. Without it Christianityand most religions will not be what they are today. If most children are presented with the bible for the first time on their 21st birthday christianity will not ne what it is today. But for christianity to ne what it is children will have to be indoctrinated at an early age so that they will remain in the religion.

From his book J.D. Brucker states it plainly that:
"indoctrination means to heavily influence someone into believing a particular set of ideas, whether they are political, cultural, or religious. Most often, this is done when the individual is particularly young, when he or she lack the ability to reasonably conclude whether or not a statement is true. Those who’ve experienced heavy indoctrination may be unaware of competing theories, alternate hypotheses, or even whether the ideas hold any merit at all; those ideas are simply believed and held dear for an unknown period of time".


As a former christian who went through the process of childhood indoctrination I have firsthand knowledge regarding the practices of indoctrination when it comes to Christianity. As children attending Sunday school , bible stories were read to us as facts, prayers were rehashed and taught to us as very good things that we need to carry out always, Christian hymns and songs were taught, and so on. We as children had no choice in the matter. We were being taught by people we believed were authorities that these particular sets of religious beliefs were true, without a chance of error. As we were taught, so were we expected to accept them fully without question as facts. We were not taught about other competing religious beliefs on a level plain field at all.

At the end almost all of us that attended Sunday school would tell anybody that cared that we know God was real, Jesus walked on water, healed the sick, rose from the dead, was resurrected and ascended into heaven on the third day; to us, all of these things were as real as anything.


Never did we entertain the idea these things might not be true and neither were we influenced in amy way to challenge those beliefs. As I said we weren’t taught about other faiths and why other individuals find those faiths to be true. We even refrained from challenging out of fear of being mocked or punished. Most times when you gothough this indoctrination you'll have no choicd bit to indoctrinate yourself into thinking religious beliefs were off the table to debate.


J.D. Brucker says: "Children are typically open to believing almost anything told to them, without question. During early childhood, children are most receptive which is why education is most important during this period of time. Learning comes faster, the memory is crisp, and children are generally open and willing to accept new information without inhibition. The age of reason is typically considered to be around 6 or 7, when the child begins to have the capabilities to weigh options and reach conclusions. This is when we must be vigilant when trying to help them develop the how to think approach.

Most Christian church organizations heavily involve children in many different events. Sunday school, summer Bible camps, wilderness retreats, catechism or confirmation, plays, and musical ceremonies top that particular list. These organizations are quite aware how impressionable children are and it appears as though they’re taking full advantage of that. Some evangelical Christian organizations fully and publicly acknowledge what they’re doing.

From a very early age, children are taught to memorize parts of the bible and dwell so much on its stories and told that the stories are of divine origins as such they are to be accepted totally as true ; sometimes, this often holds importance over studying other more earthly curriculums which are told is of less importance as the biblical narratives. This has two significant disadvantages. Firstly, this has a long lasting effect on the child’s cognitive development, as it’s primarily based on one particular source. Secondly, as a result of that, they will learn to reject other sources of knowledge simply because it deviates from what the bible teaches. This then, as I state previously, creates an “us” versus “them” frame of mind, completely carrying the believer further from other forms of enlightenment ; never questioning and always accepting, brainwashing at its best. The very same can be said for most of the orthodox Jewish population or Muslims for example. Anywhere religious instruction exists, expect indoctrination to take place at an early age"

KingEbukasBlog:
Yup , it is . Now what ?

How did you come to the conclusion that the bible is inerrant? Which research did you personally undertake that showed you that everything inside the bible is true and that the bible is competely without any error?

We can take one story from the bible that has a universal implications and use it to measure your claim about inerrancy and indoctrination.

Accordingto the bible about 4500 years ago there was a flood that covered and destroyed the entire earth killing all humans and land animals except the family of Noah and some animals that were taking into the Ark by Noah.

Is this actually history? Why or why not? If this is true then it means that 4500 years ago there were no people living in China, Egypt, India, Japan, Sudan, North America etc.

Which historical document did you study that showed you that there were NO people living in China 4500 years ago because China was competely destroyed by a flood that left everybody dead about 4500 years ago?

Can you point to any historical narrative from the Indians that says that 4500 years ago the entire India was destroyed or that nobody was living in India 4500 years ago?

Do you believe the Noah's story because you studied it and have hard facts to support the narrative or simply because you were indoctrinated and you accept it because you feel the bile is inerrant?

If the bible is inerrant then those christians you mentioned that believe in its inerrancy are wrong. If that is the case then why are you wasting our time with their position?

KingEbukasBlog:
You are making my point . Skepticism is about doubts and disagreement ; if I were to agree , I wouldn't have been in doubt .Eg You doubt God's existence , I don't .Am I Are we in disagreement yes ! Another Eg Am I on OEC creationists? Yes ! Am I skeptical about (disagree with ) the YEC position ? Yes ! and vice versa When you are in doubt , you disagree ; when you are in doubt , you can also hold a position while totally pointing out flaws out of skepticism in another position.

And that's why we have myriads and myriads and myriads of disagreements in Christianity because it is clearly open to scrutiny . From the nature of God himself to every bit of each verse in the bible .

I told you that the endless disagreement and confusing that is christianity doesn't mean that people come to accept christianity based on facts, it doesn't also mean that indoctrination isnt the main way christianity is acceptable by most people.

Even the opposing theological positions are always competing with each other and casting aspersions on competition theological positions. We've seen how the YEC always state that their position is the ONLY true position. They even try to tie the message of christian salvation to their YEC message. Theological and interpretation differences simply show that the messages are not clear and people hold different opinions about them. Nothing more.

KingEbukasBlog:
First , there is a problem we have to identify and that's the presupposition from the OP that there is indoctrination(to accept something uncritically ) in Christianity . There is not , if there were we won't have different biblical interpretations , sects in Christianity , and schools of thought in Christian theology . And why is this so ? Because Christianity allows for skepticism

Christianity does not allow for skepticism. Even the bible says that he that believes not is CONDEMNED already, because he refuses to believe in Jesus the son of God and his sacrifice. Nothing is against skepticism like those words. The difference in theology for example has nothing to do with indoctrination but everything to do with disagreement. Even the competing theological positions all try to claim that the others are wrong and only them are right.

The YEC always try to cast aspersions on the positing of the OEC, the trinitariansalways try to cast aspersions on the non trinitarians and on and on. It's not as if they accept both opposite positions as true. They always try to tell their followers that their own position is true the competing theological positions are false.

Example :
Being skeptical about the literal interpretation of the bible , we have St Augustine's allegorical exegesis
Being skeptical about the divinity of Christ led to Arianism
Critical examination of God's providence and freewill led to Molinism
Critical examination about the book of revelation led to preterism
Critical look at how God establishes His presence with man led to Sandemanianism

The list is endless ...

Let's take just one out of the rest. Is Araisim true? What is the true biblical position with regards to the divinity of Jesus?

Christian theology in fact allows for rationality while studying the tenants of Christianity and the bible .

As a child I wasn't told to take whatever being taught to me as facts . Look at me moving from creationism , progressive creationism and now to special creationism .

If Christianity allowed indoctrination as the OP claims, there wouldn't be Christian theology , St Thomas Aquinas wouldn't have made arguments for God's existence to defend his belief . Irish priest George Berkeley's profound argument for idealism - Esse est percipi - wouldn't have been made . George Lemaitre , the Belgian priest wouldn't have developed the Big Bang Theory , Christian archaeologists wouldn't bother to verify the stories in the bible etc . The list again is endless ...

Christian theological difference is as a result of disagreement and it doesn't stand against indoctrination at all. It simply shows that christians are in disagreement with each other.

KingEbukasBlog is the bible inerrant or not?

KingEbukasBlog:
What kind of question is this ? Ok tell me , what truth has atheism helped to discover that is universally and objectively acceptable to all that look at it ?

If you can answer this , then I'll answer yours . Deal ?

Am comparing scientific truths and religious truths. So far scientific truths remain the ONLY universally acceptable and objective truths. Religious truths on the other hand are only claims they don't even qualify as truths.

KingEbukasBlog:
My brother , will my position determine if the bible is inerrant or not ? Of what use is my response ?

Is the bible inerrant or not. Answer it. Why are you scared of answering?

butterflyl1on:
Every test is carried out under a CONTROLLED environment.

Materialistic atheists have science as their controlled environment.

Creationists have their own controlled environment who is known as THE HOLY SPIRIT.

when you do not have it then your controlled environment test cannot work and why?


1 Corinthians 2:10-16

10 these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit.

The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.[a] 14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. 15 The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, 16 for,

“Who has known the mind of the Lord
so as to instruct him?”[b]
But we have the mind of Christ.

I asked you a simple question and went off tangent throwing meaningless biblical passages at mean that completely fail to address what I asked you. I AM NOT talking about me, I am talking about your fellow christians. It is a fact that very sincere and honest christains are ALWAYS in disagreement with each other over so many things in the bible.

If your claim is true then it will NOT be so. The endless confusion and disagreement amongst christians shows that your assertion is totally false. In reality there is no true way of confirming anything in christianity. You can only chose to believe what ever it is you want to but there is no way of confirming anything.

Use the holy spirit and tell us the true position of the bible with regards to tithing. There are many christians here on nairaland that see tithing as wrong, there are also many here that see tithing as right. Both are very sincere in their positions and they are always bickering with each other and calling each other names, they bth lay claim to the holy spirit as their guide and the spirit that made them to come to what ever conclusion they've arrived at.

It's now that atheist are very active here on the religuous section that such squabbles have reduced but they are still going on. Use the holy spirit which is the controlled environment and objectively prove to your fellow christians the true position of the bible on tithing. Tell them now and once you are done let us know how many people you've been able to convince to change their position here on nairaland. Use the holy spirit and tell the christians here that are always bickering over tithe the true position of the bible.

KingEbukasBlog:
How will you know if my answer is indeed objective and universally accepted ?

If it is true then it will can be tested universally and accepted the same way. The multiplication table is an example of something that is universally accept to be true by all that have studied it. It is the same anywhere all over the earth and it is accepted by everybody, it can be tested and shown to be true the world over. 10×9=90 and this is true all over the world.

What truth has christianity helped to discover that is universally and objectively acceptable to all that look at it?

butterflyl1on:
The Bible does not teach "believe without questioning "

1st John 4:1

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world

1st Thessalonians 5: 19

19 Do not quench the Spirit. 20 Do not treat prophecies with contempt 21 but test them all; hold on to what is good, 22 reject every kind of evil

Etc

Testing here means to prove the word of God. How does one prove the word of God, when it becomes FACT through occurrence or confirmation.

How do you test the word of God? If this is true all the endless confusion that is christianity today will NOT be.

How do you test which is true between the young earth creationist and the old earth creationist view? How do you test the difference btw the tithers vs the non tithers view? How do you test btw the trinitarians vs the non trinitarians view? How do you test the true position in christianity and conm out with the right position? What is the criteria and process involved?

Let's start with the young earth and old earth creationist view. Which one is true and how can it be tested to know the true position?

KingEbukasBlog:
Funny enough when they say 'science will determine all truths' , the statement is self -refuting because the statement is not even a scientific but they are claiming its the truth .

Science can only help discover some truths but on all truths .

Which truth has christianity helped people to discover that is objectively and univesally accepted?

KingEbukasBlog:
I dont think you know what a strawman is .

You claimed that Christians aren't allowed to question the bible and that questioning the bible is questioning God's authority .

I showed you why that that claim is so false with Christians who question bible inerrancy . Bible inerrancy means that the bible is ultimately God's word- that there are no errors , it is infallible and undeniably the word of God . Questioning bible inerrancy means not accepting that the bible is God's word and this does not mean God's authority is challenged .

Is the bible inerrant? Answer it and don't run away from it. Again is the bible inerrant?

KingEbukasBlog:
First , there is a problem we have to identify and that's the presupposition from the OP that there indoctrination in Christianity . There is not , if there were we won't have different biblical interpretations , sects in Christianity , and schools of thought in Christian theology . And why is this so ? Because Christianity allows for skepticism .

Example :
Being skeptical about the literal interpretation of the bible , we have St Augustine's allegorical exegesis
Being skeptical about the divinity of Christ led to Arianism
Critical examination of God's providence and freewill led to Molinism
Critical examination about the book of revelation led to preterism
Critical look at how God establishes His presence with man led to Sandemanianism

The list is endless ...

Christian theology in fact allows for rationality while studying the tenants of Christianity and the bible .

As a child I wasn't told to take whatever being taught to me as facts . Look at me moving from creationism , progressive creationism and now to special creationism .

If Christianity allowed indoctrination as the OP claims, there wouldn't be Christian theology , St Thomas Aquinas wouldn't have made arguments for God's existence to defend his belief . Irish priest George Berkeley's profound argument for idealism - Esse est percipi - wouldn't have been made . George Lemaitre , the Belgian priest wouldn't have developed the Big Bang Theory , Christian archaeologists wouldn't bother to verify the stories in the bible etc . The list again is endless ...

Good. I'll get back to you later when am free.

When everybody sees through your dishonesty and you remain adamant then the best thing is to let you wallow in your hard headedness.

KingEbukasBlog who I believe is a more honest person should come and take over and let there be a honest debate if there will be one.

butterflyl1on:
The thread is about indoctrination and from an atheist view he says religion does that.

I as a theist says Atheism ALSO carries out indoctrination.

You have a point of view or context as an atheist which I did not deny (read my very first comment).

I as a theist have my own point of view and context.

What you are trying to do is claim I DENIED the context when I did not but I accepted it in my very first comment.

My view is a rebuttal which shows that indoctrination is done in EVERY aspect of KNOWLEDGE dessimination and acceptance and is a major foundation for atheistic beliefs and ideologies.

You DENIED the context by twisting the definition and saying that it means to teach. It doesn't, indoctrination in this context means to brain wash. And that I'd what religion does. If you agree that atheism also brainwashes then you can debate on that and show how it does .