Most Christians are "Christian" Because they were Indoctrinated as Children

[Diogenes]

In the post "Christians: aren't you embarrassed and angry?" posting.php?mode=quote&f=8&p=1073778
I wrote:

When they finally "get it" and realize most of them are Christians mainly because of childhood indoctrination and step out of the bondage of fantasy they were taught at an early age, then they are embarrassed or angry or both. ... and it has little to do with the reasons stated in post #1.

This suggests the current topic, 'Most Christians are "Christian" Because they were Indoctrinated as Children.'

In support of this proposition I quote from the Southern Nazarene University website,
http://home.snu.edu/~hculbert/ages.htm where they claim 85% of Christians have their conversion experience ("are saved") at ages 4 to 14 and only 4% after the age of 30.

Parenthetically I note the human brain does not fully develop until about age 25.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3621648/

[JehovahsWitness]

Now, of course I don't believe Santa exists, but I don't know he doesn't.

Fair enough.

If a belief is incorrect, that's just a fact.

Yes but since (when it comes to religious beliefs OR the spiritual realm) you do not know which is correct and which is incorrect, how can you know which parents are preparing their children for the best possible future ?

You are purposely conditioning your child to believe in a lie.

How can you qualify something as a lie when you do not know if that thing is true or not?

[TRANSPONDER]

Now, of course I don't believe Santa exists, but I don't know he doesn't.

Fair enough.

If a belief is incorrect, that's just a fact.

Yes but since (when it comes to religious beliefs OR the spiritual realm) you do not know which is correct and which is incorrect, how can you know which parents are preparing their children for the best possible future ?

You are purposely conditioning your child to believe in a lie.

How can you qualify something as a lie when you do not know if that thing is true or not?

cue: reference to the nongoing (there;s a freudian slip if ever there was one ..) Ongoing debate, which the Theist side have been consistently losing since i have been here, on the former Forums I parachuted into and ever since the online debate started. All that is happening is their persistent denial that they have been proved wrong, and their clinging to Faith as a mindset, fationale and argument. e.g I have Faith that what I believe is true, and until every remote and far fetched possible excuse is proven 100% impossible, I shall continue to claim that nothing has been proved.

To which I would add that even with something like the nativity which I would say is totally debunked, the faithful would continue to credit it, even if they would never dare to debate it.

You lose yet again.

[Diogenes]

The area that I think is abusive and harmful is when parents teach their children things that are factually incorrect ...

You redacted the most important part of my statement:

At the very least the parents, after sharing their minority [I'd say "absurd"] views, they have a duty to their children to say, "This is what we believe. Most scientists disagree with us and you should study and come to your own conclusions."

This is exactly what JWs don't do. They don't teach children to think for themselves and come to their own conclusions. This is what is abusive, to teach and preach something that has been proved wrong and is at least known to be controversial, and then intimidate or coerce little children into accepting the absurd.

The Watchtower Nov 15, 2013, paragraph 17:
“(3) At that time, the life-saving direction that we receive from Jehovah’s organization may not appear practical from a human standpoint. All of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not.

[historia]

No one is going around trying to convince children to be atheists

some atheist parents are trying to convince their children to be atheists

I think that, overall, this is a fair statement, particularly when you use the wise qualifier "some."

Cool. You should try it some time.

The word 'indoctrinate' probably encompasses a wide and flexible range from merely providing selected information, to attempts at mind control or "brain washing."

It's also an entirely unhelpful term to use in the context of parenting.

As anyone who has been a parent can attest, young kids instinctively absorb everything you say and do. You can't help but pass on your beliefs and values -- religious or otherwise -- to your kids, and that will necessarily be a selective process.

I have no quarrel with parents providing children with religious material and sharing their own religious beliefs.

Then it seems to me your concern here is not really about kids being taught their religious and cultural heritage, as the OP frames the discussion. But really just the fact that there are certain ideas you don't like.

[JehovahsWitness]

... what is abusive, to teach and preach something that has been proved wrong ..

How does one prove a religious belief wrong?

[We_Are_VENOM]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #1]

Many current atheists were raised as Christians. So what?

It aint about where you come from, it is about where you currently are, and what direction you are going in.

[TRANSPONDER]

No one is going around trying to convince children to be atheists

some atheist parents are trying to convince their children to be atheists

I think that, overall, this is a fair statement, particularly when you use the wise qualifier "some."

Cool. You should try it some time.

The word 'indoctrinate' probably encompasses a wide and flexible range from merely providing selected information, to attempts at mind control or "brain washing."

It's also an entirely unhelpful term to use in the context of parenting.

As anyone who has been a parent can attest, young kids instinctively absorb everything you say and do. You can't help but pass on your beliefs and values -- religious or otherwise -- to your kids, and that will necessarily be a selective process.

I have no quarrel with parents providing children with religious material and sharing their own religious beliefs.

Then it seems to me your concern here is not really about kids being taught their religious and cultural heritage, as the OP frames the discussion. But really just the fact that there are certain ideas you don't like.

That may be so, but that is irrelevant. It is a question of what is, on reason and evidence, true, both on what one may happen to prefer.
.

... what is abusive, to teach and preach something that has been proved wrong ..

How does one prove a religious belief wrong?

Yet again the wrongheaded shifting of the burden of proof. It isn't for atheists to disprove a religion, but for the believer to prove it.

[Replying to Diogenes in post #1]

Many current atheists were raised as Christians. So what?

It aint about where you come from, it is about where you currently are, and what direction you are going in.

True enough and if one is making their way via Doubt and Question to non -b elief, I'd say they are going the right way. That many atheists were raised as Christians is significant for several reasons: They came to see that it did not stack up, they know their Bible or Dogma at least, and they know how a Christian thinks. That's a pretty fair so What, wouldn't you say?

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #57]

Diogenes:... what is abusive, to teach and preach something that has been proved wrong ..

JehovahsWitness : How does one prove a religious belief wrong?

TRANSPONDER: Yet again the wrongheaded shifting of the burden of proof. It isn't for atheists to disprove a religion, but for the believer to prove it.
__________________________________________________
I think that if an atheist makes a statement such as the one Diogenes made above, and a believer asks how did one [or does one] prove a religious belief 'wrong', it is not a case of shifting burden but of legitimate enquiring.

Sure, it isn't for atheists to disprove a religion, but how does this absolve them from having to provide evidence for statements they might make about religion?

[benchwarmer]

If a belief is incorrect, that's just a fact.

Yes but since (when it comes to religious beliefs OR the spiritual realm) you do not know which is correct and which is incorrect, how can you know which parents are preparing their children for the best possible future ?

I know that parents who teach unverifiable beliefs as facts are not preparing their children very well. I don't see why religion should get a pass. It's perfectly fine to say "I believe because of X,Y, and Z, but don't know for a fact". That way, a child can decide whether to believe or not based on the critical thinking that parents should also be teaching.

You are purposely conditioning your child to believe in a lie.

How can you qualify something as a lie when you do not know if that thing is true or not?

You lifted that quote slightly out of context. If the parent knows they are the ones leaving Santa gifts under the tree, then they know that Santa isn't doing it. If they still tell their children that Santa did it then they are straight up lying and know it. Santa may still exist, but he is not the one leaving the presents.

To your question in general, if you don't know something for a fact, then you know whether you are lying or not if you present it as a fact. If you simply believe, then present the idea as such. However, we all know religion in general does not work like this and thus the entire point of this OP.

[JehovahsWitness]

You are purposely conditioning your child to believe in a lie.

How can you qualify something as a lie when you do not know if that thing is true or not?

You lifted that quote slightly out of context.

Special pleading aside, you don't know if Santa exists or not and you don't know if God exists or not (correct me if I am wrong ). So .... how can you say someone teaching about God is purposely conditioning a child to, {quote} "believe in a lie"?