Answering the Legacy belief Argument

Pixie has often and repeatedly made an old argument used by internet atheists, that religion in general and Christianity in particular are primarily believed by people because their parents handed it down to them, This serves two functions, it allows  him to assert that the intellectual content of reasons for faith are weak (aka no rational warrant) and this will lead to decline of the belief. As Pixie has put it: 
Personally, I think it [level of commitment to Christianity] can only go down, as the primary reason for believing in Christianity is that you were raised in a Christian culture. As the culture becomes less Christian, less Christians will be raised...The evidence for this is very clear; Hindus come from Hindu families, Muslims come from Muslim families, Christians come from Christian families. People do not follow a religion because of the evidence, they follow it because they were told it was true from an early age...Sure, there are other factors. Clearly Christianity got started somehow, but it was in a very different world. Cultures adopted Christianity when the alternatives were local superstitions and paganism. Now Christianity is competing with science in a world where information is freely available; what does it have to offer?[1]

He states "...the primary reason for believing in Christianity is that you were raised in a Christian culture...(above)" that is a false statement, it is emphatically not the case. His assertion obviously proves nothing. Just because the majority of believers may not be deep believers, that does not prove there are no deep believers who discovered the truth. Moreover, it is not the case that the major reason for belief is parental legacy. This is specifically disproved by the numbers.
     
"2.7 million convert to Christianity annually from another religion..."[2]That is a direct contradiction to the thesis since these people should be moving away from religion. 44% If religious believers in America have left their childhood faith for another faith.
One of the most striking findings from the 2007 Landscape Survey was the large number of people who have left their childhood faith. The 2007 survey found that more than one-in-four American adults (28%) have changed their religious affiliation from that in which they were raised. This number includes people who have changed from one major religious tradition to another, for instance, from Protestantism to Catholicism or from Judaism to no religion. If change within religious traditions is included (e.g., from one Protestant denominational family to another), the survey found that roughly 44% of Americans now profess a religious affiliation different from that in which they were raised...the survey found that roughly 44% of Americans now profess a religious affiliation different from that in which they were raised.[3]
            In a study commissioned by Theos, (the public theology think tank),it is found that life long Christians tend to be less well educated than life long term atheists, This is not surprising,"...What is interesting – and surprising –"says Nick Spencer,
the same story is going on in education as with socio-economic grade. "Converts" to theism are disproportionately made up of those with a master's degree or above, and those with "no academic qualifications" are disproportionately underrepresented in this group, whereas "converts" to atheism are disproportionately made up of those with "no academic qualifications", and with BAs (but not MAs or above).[4]
  That would seem to totally disprove the thesis. Converts to Christiainty tend to be better educated more Ph.D more masters surely these are not conertions based upon shallow superstition? Nor are they doing so because of their parents.  I never took the argument seriously because it's disproved by my own case. I rejected my parents beliefs. I became an atheist.But then I went on to deeper truths that atheism could not address. Yet I didn't just go back to my parents teachings in fact my parents  had changed independently of me.
          
notes

[1]Pixie in Joseph Hinman,"Is Religious Belef in Declime?"  Cadre Coments,blog, comment page (December 2020)https://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2020/12/is-religious-belief-in-decline.html?showComment=1608753653954#c6215613084052930255 
 

[2]David B. Barrett, George Thomas Kurian, Todd M. Johnson, eds. World Christian Encyclopedia Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press USA,2001.360.

[3] "Faith in Flux,: Pew Research centerm Religion in Public life (APRIL 27, 2009--Revised February 2011)https://www.pewforum.org/2009/04/27/faith-in-flux/ accesse Dec. 27 2020  

[4] Nick Spencer, "religion and learning: what we know," The Guardian(6 Oct 2009 )https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/oct/05/atheist-religion-education-demographics-class  Nick Spencer is director of studies at the thinktank Theos. His book Freedom and Order: History, Politics and the English Bible is published by Hodder ...    (2,000+ respondents) attitude on eolition,a/theism

Comments

Anonymous said…
As you quoted me saying:

"The evidence for this is very clear; Hindus come from Hindu families, Muslims come from Muslim families, Christians come from Christian families. People do not follow a religion because of the evidence, they follow it because they were told it was true from an early age."

I see in response you say "that is a false statement, it is emphatically not the case". Are you disputing that most Hindus were raised in Hindi households? Do you really dispute that most Muslims have parents who are also Muslims?

You quote an article:

"One of the most striking findings from the 2007 Landscape Survey was the large number of people who have left their childhood faith. ... This number includes people who have changed from one major religious tradition to another, for instance, from Protestantism to Catholicism or from Judaism to no religion."

Changing from Protestant to Catholic is still Christian; it is not adopting a different religion. Changing from Judaism to no religion is not adopting a different religion.

You yourself have changed religion twice; but inevitably you now believe the same religion as your parents; Christianity.

A couple of quotes from that report:

"Former Catholics who are now unaffiliated are much less likely than lifelong Catholics to have attended Mass regularly or to have had very strong faith as teenagers."

"Former Protestants who are now unaffiliated are less likely to have regularly attended worship services as a child and even less likely to have attended regularly as a teenager. They also are much less likely to report having attended Sunday school or having had very strong religious faith as a child or a teenager."

What this is saying people who left Christianity were those who had less exposure as children. That fully supports my position. The more a child is exposed to a religion at an early age, the greater the probability of adopting it.

And that means the prognosis for Christianity is not good. All those people that are now vague Christians, who believe but do not go to church, are raising children with little exposure to Christianity, and are far more likely to abandon it altogether.

Pix
BK said…
This has been the silly contention of John Loftus since we formerly tussled on this blog. He went on to write books that has this idea as one of his main arguments which is one of many reasons for ignoring him.

Certainly, it is true that kids who are raised in a Christian environment are more likely than people raised in non-Christian environments to come to know faith. That's called "education." If you teach your kids that manners are irrelevant, they are much less likely to follow the rules of etiquette. If you teach your kids that truth is relative, they are much less likely to come to believe that truth is not subjective. This has nothing to do with the truth of Christianity and (as you correctly point out) millions of people turn to the faith despite being raised in non-Christian homes.
So true Bill. Px makes a ot of bad assumptions ill deal with more next time,

the great John Loftus ;-)
Anonymous said…
BK: Certainly, it is true that kids who are raised in a Christian environment are more likely than people raised in non-Christian environments to come to know faith. That's called "education." If you teach your kids that manners are irrelevant, they are much less likely to follow the rules of etiquette. If you teach your kids that truth is relative, they are much less likely to come to believe that truth is not subjective.

So in fact you concede that I am right!

BK: This has nothing to do with the truth of Christianity ...

And I never said it did.

Pix
Anonymous said…
BK: Certainly, it is true that kids who are raised in a Christian environment are more likely than people raised in non-Christian environments to come to know faith. That's called "education." If you teach your kids that manners are irrelevant, they are much less likely to follow the rules of etiquette. If you teach your kids that truth is relative, they are much less likely to come to believe that truth is not subjective.

So in fact you concede that I am right!

yes he said that if by being right you mean not knowing what you are talking about

BK: This has nothing to do with the truth of Christianity ...

And I never said it did.

yes except for the part about how it's all superstition; you don't know what you are saying
Anonymous said...
As you quoted me saying:

"The evidence for this is very clear; Hindus come from Hindu families, Muslims come from Muslim families, Christians come from Christian families. People do not follow a religion because of the evidence, they follow it because they were told it was true from an early age."

I see in response you say "that is a false statement, it is emphatically not the case". Are you disputing that most Hindus were raised in Hindi households? Do you really dispute that most Muslims have parents who are also Muslims?

notice how he carefully omits the statement to which I said that? First I quoted the bit he quoted then i said "he says:" ad I quoted "...the primary reason for believing in Christianity is that you were raised in a Christian culture...(above)" then I said ==Obviously the falsehood is that Christians believers only get it from the parents. he wants to quote so as to make it seem that Hendus don;t come fron hindu faililes. that is a false statement,



You quote an article:

"One of the most striking findings from the 2007 Landscape Survey was the large number of people who have left their childhood faith. ... This number includes people who have changed from one major religious tradition to another, for instance, from Protestantism to Catholicism or from Judaism to no religion."

Changing from Protestant to Catholic is still Christian; it is not adopting a different religion. Changing from Judaism to no religion is not adopting a different religion.

If your principle is true it should work with all faiths. Why would people have rational reasons for switching from Baptist to Methodist but not in adopting Christianity itself? Christian?, You also ignore the quote saying 2 million converses from non Christian to Christian per year


You yourself have changed religion twice; but inevitably you now believe the same religion as your parents; Christianity.

both my parents and I switched me from atheism and them from Chruch of Crist to charismatic independently of each other, In the end I did have the same faith as they did but not the one they raise me in, they are now face to face with God so they get it all up front.




A couple of quotes from that report:

"Former Catholics who are now unaffiliated are much less likely than lifelong Catholics to have attended Mass regularly or to have had very strong faith as teenagers."

as opposed to the unaffiliated Catholics who ate stong faith, not all former Catholics areinaffiliated


"Former Protestants who are now unaffiliated are less likely to have regularly attended worship services as a child and even less likely to have attended regularly as a teenager. They also are much less likely to report having attended Sunday school or having had very strong religious faith as a child or a teenager."

almost tautologies


What this is saying people who left Christianity were those who had less exposure as children.

what that really tells us is people need instructions an socialization


That fully supports my position. The more a child is exposed to a religion at an early age, the greater the probability of adopting it.

You have not answered the fact that 2 million non Christians become Christians each year

And that means the prognosis for Christianity is not good. All those people that are now vague Christians, who believe but do not go to church, are raising children with little exposure to Christianity, and are far more likely to abandon it altogether.

you missed the one saying children of nones are more liekly to find affiliation, you are taking a complex social process and trying to reduce it to simple weaponry for your ideological struggle,


BK said…
No, Pix. I am not conceding you are correct. Far from it.
Anonymous said…
BK: No, Pix. I am not conceding you are correct. Far from it.

My claim:

"The evidence for this is very clear; Hindus come from Hindu families, Muslims come from Muslim families, Christians come from Christian families. People do not follow a religion because of the evidence, they follow it because they were told it was true from an early age."

Your claim:

"Certainly, it is true that kids who are raised in a Christian environment are more likely than people raised in non-Christian environments to come to know faith. That's called "education." If you teach your kids that manners are irrelevant, they are much less likely to follow the rules of etiquette. If you teach your kids that truth is relative, they are much less likely to come to believe that truth is not subjective."

What is the difference?

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: yes he said that if by being right you mean not knowing what you are talking about

Is this what passes for intelligent debate around here?

My argument is founded on the claim that Christians generally come from Christian families, Hindus from Hindu families, etc. As far as I can tell, BK conceded that when he/she said "Certainly, it is true that kids who are raised in a Christian environment are more likely than people raised in non-Christian environments to come to know faith."

You could try to address that. Or you could act like we are rowing in the school playground.

Joe: yes except for the part about how it's all superstition; you don't know what you are saying

With regards to superstition, I actually said "Cultures adopted Christianity when the alternatives were local superstitions and paganism". Rather than say Christianity is a superstition, I said it was an alternative to superstition.

Kind of looks like YOU do not know what you are talking about, Joe.

Joe: notice how he carefully omits the statement to which I said that? First I quoted the bit he quoted then i said "he says:" ad I quoted "...the primary reason for believing in Christianity is that you were raised in a Christian culture...(above)" then I said ==Obviously the falsehood is that Christians believers only get it from the parents. ...

The truth, Joe, is that I never said "Christians believers only get it from the parents", I said that was the primary reason. But hey, I guess you know that that is an argument you cannot win, so you want to change the goalposts.

Joe: ... he wants to quote so as to make it seem that Hendus don;t come fron hindu faililes. ...

That is simply not true. I said the exact opposite: "The evidence for this is very clear; Hindus come from Hindu families, Muslims come from Muslim families, Christians come from Christian families."

I really hope that was an honest mistake and not an outright lie.

Joe: If your principle is true it should work with all faiths. Why would people have rational reasons for switching from Baptist to Methodist but not in adopting Christianity itself? Christian?,

Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, etc. all believe the Bible is true. Virtually all Christian apologetics is based on:

The Bible is true
Therefore the Bible is true

That works whatever denomination you are. And it works because Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, etc. are all indoctrinated to believe the Bible is true from an early age.

Joe: You also ignore the quote saying 2 million converses from non Christian to Christian per year

How is that worked out? Would that include people like you who returned to Christianity? Does that include changing from Protestant to Catholic? It s a meaningless statistic without any context. Perhaps you could scan the paper and e-mail it to me. Given you quote it, you must have it, right?

Joe: both my parents and I switched me from atheism and them from Chruch of Crist to charismatic independently of each other, In the end I did have the same faith as they did but not the one they raise me in, they are now face to face with God so they get it all up front.

You were raised by Christian parents who taught you the Bible is true.

Joe: as opposed to the unaffiliated Catholics who ate stong faith, not all former Catholics areinaffiliated

So what?

Joe: what that really tells us is people need instructions an socialization

Sure, if we assume the Bible is true. Which Christians do, because they were taught to do so from an early age.

Joe: you missed the one saying children of nones are more liekly to find affiliation, you are taking a complex social process and trying to reduce it to simple weaponry for your ideological struggle,

I did miss that. Please quote it; got to admit I am dubious it exists.

Pix
Anonymous said…
This is from a paper about what is expected between 2010 and 2050.
https://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/

"Over the coming decades, Christians are expected to experience the largest net losses from switching. Globally, about 40 million people are projected to switch into Christianity, while 106 million are projected to leave, with most joining the ranks of the religiously unaffiliated. (See chart above.)

All told, the unaffiliated are expected to add 97 million people and lose 36 million via switching, for a net gain of 61 million by 2050. ..."

That indicates about 1 million people across the world becomes Christian each year (but 2.6 million quits Christianity). I am not sure how that would be spread across the globe. As you said elsewhere, Christianity is making gains in China, so it is likely a bit chunk of that 1 million is there.

Pix
Anonymous said…
This is from a paper about what is expected between 2010 and 2050.
https://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/

"Over the coming decades, Christians are expected to experience the largest net losses from switching. Globally, about 40 million people are projected to switch into Christianity, while 106 million are projected to leave, with most joining the ranks of the religiously unaffiliated. (See chart above.)

that doesn't tell me shit about the people saying it; even so what does that prove? It does not prove the are no valid reasons to belive in Christ

All told, the unaffiliated are expected to add 97 million people and lose 36 million via switching, for a net gain of 61 million by 2050. ..."

strikes me as real bull shit--if your thesis is true they have no reaosn to leave Christianity because they will be believe the suerstition,

That indicates about 1 million people across the world becomes Christian each year (but 2.6 million quits Christianity). I am not sure how that would be spread across the globe. As you said elsewhere, Christianity is making gains in China, so it is likely a bit chunk of that 1 million is there.

No I already documented that 2 million a year join, you play fast and lose with numbers
Anonymous said…
Joe: yes he said that if by being right you mean not knowing what you are talking about

Is this what passes for intelligent debate around here?

I carefully documented many good points now answer them fairly

My argument is founded on the claim that Christians generally come from Christian families, Hindus from Hindu families, etc. As far as I can tell, BK conceded that when he/she said "Certainly, it is true that kids who are raised in a Christian environment are more likely than people raised in non-Christian environments to come to know faith."

you also it a negative connotation on that which BK and I disproved. btw BK is a guy

You could try to address that. Or you could act like we are rowing in the school playground.

I disproved all of your basic assertions

Joe: yes except for the part about how it's all superstition; you don't know what you are saying

With regards to superstition, I actually said "Cultures adopted Christianity when the alternatives were local superstitions and paganism". Rather than say Christianity is a superstition, I said it was an alternative to superstition.

Kind of looks like YOU do not know what you are talking about, Joe.

U have gotten the distinct impression that you think religion is just superstition. are you denying that?


Pew research center faith in flx

"Americans change religious affiliation early and often. In total, about half of American adults have changed religious affiliation at least once during their lives. Most people who change their religion leave their childhood faith before age 24, and many of those who change religion do so more than once. These are among the key findings of a new survey conducted by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life. The survey documents the fluidity of religious affiliation in the U.S. and describes in detail the patterns and reasons for change."

about half, that destroys the assertion that most Christians are in the mold of their parents,

Anonymous said…
Joe: that doesn't tell me shit about the people saying it; even so what does that prove? It does not prove the are no valid reasons to belive in Christ

It makes your figure of 2.7 million highly suspect.

Joe: strikes me as real bull shit--if your thesis is true they have no reaosn to leave Christianity because they will be believe the suerstition,

I have no idea where you get that from.

Joe: No I already documented that 2 million a year join, you play fast and lose with numbers

You asserted 2.7 million. I see you failed to e-mail me a scan of the article the figure comes from, so we have no idea of the context.

And that figure is disputed by the Pew Research Center, an organisation you have previously cited as an authority.

Joe: you also it a negative connotation on that which BK and I disproved.

What "negative connotation"?

Joe: U have gotten the distinct impression that you think religion is just superstition. are you denying that?

The issue is what I said. I did not say Christianity is superstition, I said it is an alternative to superstition. You do not get to pretend I said something I did not. That is called "lying".

Joe: about half, that destroys the assertion that most Christians are in the mold of their parents,

Only of they join another, non-Christian religion. Do you honestly think that that is what the report says? Do you honestly think around half of all Christians become Hindus, Muslims, etc.?

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: that doesn't tell me shit about the people saying it; even so what does that prove? It does not prove the are no valid reasons to belive in Christ

It makes your figure of 2.7 million highly suspect.


because it disproves your God hate not because you have a real argument,

Joe: strikes me as real bull shit--if your thesis is true they have no reaosn to leave Christianity because they will be believe the suerstition,

I have no idea where you get that from.

Joe: No I already documented that 2 million a year join, you play fast and lose with numbers

You asserted 2.7 million. I see you failed to e-mail me a scan of the article the figure comes from, so we have no idea of the context.

I did not assert it I am quoting directly. source:David B. Barrett, George Thomas Kurian, Todd M. Johnson, eds. World Christian Encyclopedia Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press USA,2001.360.

you could easily have seen that by checking the footnote! you can't even be bothered to read the material


And that figure is disputed by the Pew Research Center, an organisation you have previously cited as an authority.

Pew gives us the 44% quote which is just as damaging to your thesis" "from one Protestant denominational family to another), the survey found that roughly 44% of Americans now profess a religious affiliation different from that in which they were raised..."

bull shit show me the quote?

Joe: you also it a negative connotation on that which BK and I disproved.

What "negative connotation"?

Joe: i have gotten the distinct impression that you think religion is just superstition. are you denying that?

The issue is what I said. I did not say Christianity is superstition, I said it is an alternative to superstition. You do not get to pretend I said something I did not. That is called "lying".

ok

Joe: about half, that destroys the assertion that most Christians are in the mold of their parents,

Only of they join another, non-Christian religion. Do you honestly think that that is what the report says? Do you honestly think around half of all Christians become Hindus, Muslims, etc.?

No changing types of Christianity can take just as much courage and insight as changing religions, the church of Christ i grew up in was externally exculivisitic they thought even Baptists are going to hell.
Anonymous said…
Joe: because it disproves your God hate not because you have a real argument,

You would not know a "real" argument if it was rammed down your throat.

Your figure of 2.7 is dubious because:

(i) You likely do not actually have the article you cite, given you are unable to e-mail it to me.

(ii) It is not clear if this includes, for example, swapping from Protestant to Catholic or not.

(iii) It disagrees with the figure from the Pew Research Center, an organisation you have previously cited as an authority.

Pix: You asserted 2.7 million. I see you failed to e-mail me a scan of the article the figure comes from, so we have no idea of the context.

Joe: I did not assert it I am quoting directly. source:David B. Barrett, George Thomas Kurian, Todd M. Johnson, eds. World Christian Encyclopedia Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press USA,2001.360.

you could easily have seen that by checking the footnote! you can't even be bothered to read the material


And yet you are unable to e-mail it to me. Frankly, I do not believe you have ever seen the article itself, and that makes me think you have no idea what the figure actually represents.

Joe: Pew gives us the 44% quote which is just as damaging to your thesis" "from one Protestant denominational family to another), the survey found that roughly 44% of Americans now profess a religious affiliation different from that in which they were raised..."

But I have been talking about moving from one religion to another, not one denomination. Here is what I said:

Personally, I think it [level of commitment to Christianity] can only go down, as the primary reason for believing in Christianity is that you were raised in a Christian culture. As the culture becomes less Christian, less Christians will be raised...The evidence for this is very clear; Hindus come from Hindu families, Muslims come from Muslim families, Christians come from Christian families.

Christian, not Methodist or Catholic or whatever. And that is what you quoted in your post, Joe. You know what I said, but want to twist the argument, because you now realise you do not have a leg to stand on.

Joe: bull shit show me the quote?

You appear to be calling bullshit on your own comment. Good call.

Joe: No changing types of Christianity can take just as much courage and insight as changing religions, the church of Christ i grew up in was externally exculivisitic they thought even Baptists are going to hell.

Parachuting also takes a lot of courage. But just like changing denomination it is irrelevant to this discussion.

Pix
BK said…
Pix: "What is the difference?"

Me: A lot. I am echoing Romans 10:14-15: '14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”' The more people who hear, the more will believe. Your underlying assumption is that the only reason that people believe is because they were raised to believe due to their socialization. I am saying that the more people who hear the Good News, the more will believe and more people believe in societies where the Good News is shared freely without being suppressed.
Anonymous said…
BK: A lot. I am echoing Romans 10:14-15: '14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”' The more people who hear, the more will believe. Your underlying assumption is that the only reason that people believe is because they were raised to believe due to their socialization. I am saying that the more people who hear the Good News, the more will believe and more people believe in societies where the Good News is shared freely without being suppressed.

I am not saying that. I am saying the primary - but not only reason - people become Christians is because they are taught that Christianity is true as children. And I said nothing about socialization.

That said, I am talking about teach children, and you are talking more generally.

Pix
I am not saying that. I am saying the primary - but not only reason - people become Christians is because they are taught that Christianity is true as children. And I said nothing about socialization.

That said, I am talking about teach children, and you are talking more generally.


no reason why they can't be taught valid reasons to believe
Anonymous said…
Joe: no reason why they can't be taught valid reasons to believe

True. And no reason to suppose they are.

I have seen a lot of apologetics arguments, and all seem to rely on the assumption that the Bible is true or that Christianity is the default answer if we do not know.

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: no reason why they can't be taught valid reasons to believe

True. And no reason to suppose they are.

I have seen a lot of apologetics arguments, and all seem to rely on the assumption that the Bible is true or that Christianity is the default answer if we do not know.


why would your belief system not be your default? That's reasonable and it's what atheists do. The Bile is true it just depends upon what aspects you mean.Have you read it? how much?
btw most Christians are not into apologetics. That's not real representative.
Anonymous said…
Joe: why would your belief system not be your default?

I think this sums it up. Christian arguments use Christianity as the default. If we do not know, then we assume Christianity.

And that works fine for existing Christians - they already think Christianity is true. But it is not going to convince non-Christians.

Like all arguments for Christianity, it implicitly assumes Christianity is true. If you have been taught as a kid that Christianity is true, you are likely to be convinced. If you have not, you will reject it. And that is really all I am saying here.

Joe: That's reasonable and it's what atheists do.

I expect some do, but I certainly do not. If we do not know, then the conclusion is; "We do not know".

Joe: The Bile is true it just depends upon what aspects you mean.Have you read it? how much?

Irrelevant to this discussion.

Pix
btw most Christians are not into apologetics. That's not real representative.
12/29/2020 11:41:00 PM

Anonymous said…
Joe: why would your belief system not be your default?

why fall back on something you don't believe in? Atheists use their belief as default when they say unbelief is the default

I think this sums it up. Christian arguments use Christianity as the default. If we do not know, then we assume Christianity.

all people do that. You can't fall back on something you don't know. But Christianity is not an all purpose source of knowledge. It only pertains to soteriological issues.

And that works fine for existing Christians - they already think Christianity is true. But it is not going to convince non-Christians.

I didn't propose it for that. Of course you must first come to know Christ, then you have assurance of the truth of the gospel.

Like all arguments for Christianity, it implicitly assumes Christianity is true. If you have been taught as a kid that Christianity is true, you are likely to be convinced. If you have not, you will reject it. And that is really all I am saying here.

I wasn't making an argument for the truth of the faith genius, I was talking about fall back. Can't you read? I know you English have problems with the language.

Joe: That's reasonable and it's what atheists do.

I expect some do, but I certainly do not. If we do not know, then the conclusion is; "We do not know".

Joe: The Bile is true it just depends upon what aspects you mean.Have you read it? how much?

Irrelevant to this discussion.

Joe: The Bile is true it just depends upon what aspects you mean.Have you read it? how much?

PX: Irrelevant to this discussion.

You brought it up it goes back to this exchange:


Anonymous said...
Joe: no reason why they can't be taught valid reasons to believe

PX:True. And no reason to suppose they are.

I have seen a lot of apologetics arguments, and all seem to rely on the assumption that the Bible is true or that Christianity is the default answer if we do not know.


that is the premise of the position an apologist defends. It's not the reason for accepting that position. It is not the basis of arguments advance for the establishment of truth. It's the fall back when the apologist has no more arguments or doesn't know how to proceed. A fall back is not part of apologetics
Anonymous said…
Joe: why fall back on something you don't believe in? Atheists use their belief as default when they say unbelief is the default

But that is not going to convince non-believers. You are pretty much admitting this argument will only conmvince if you are already a Christian.

Joe: all people do that. You can't fall back on something you don't know. But Christianity is not an all purpose source of knowledge. It only pertains to soteriological issues.

You are losing sight of the issue we are debating.

I am saying the primary way Christianity recruits new members (in the US and Europe anyway) is by making them think the Bible is true from an early age. You are here conceding that your argument only works for people who already think Christianity is true.

Joe: I didn't propose it for that. Of course you must first come to know Christ, then you have assurance of the truth of the gospel.

This is a discussion about how Christianity attracts non-Christians. You have just admitted that your argument is irrelevant.

Joe: I wasn't making an argument for the truth of the faith genius, I was talking about fall back. Can't you read? I know you English have problems with the language.

Then it is irrelevant to this discussion.

Joe: that is the premise of the position an apologist defends. It's not the reason for accepting that position. It is not the basis of arguments advance for the establishment of truth. It's the fall back when the apologist has no more arguments or doesn't know how to proceed. A fall back is not part of apologetics

Okay, that may be my fault then. i was using "apologetics" to mean arguing for Christianity to non-Christians; perhaps it is just preaching to the converted.

Do you have any arguments that might convince a non-Christian? If not, how will Christianity get new converts, other than indoctrinating children?

Pix
BK said…
Pix: I am saying the primary - but not only reason - people become Christians is because they are taught that Christianity is true as children. And I said nothing about socialization. That said, I am talking about teach children, and you are talking more generally.

BK: And I am disagreeing that the primary reason that they become Christians is because they are taught that it is true as children. However, we are in agreement that teaching children that Christianity is true makes it much more likely that they will grow up to believe it is true than if you raise them to believe Christianity is false. As I said, that is education. We teach what we believe to be true, good and helpful to our children. That's a given. And that's also why I believe it is important that children be taught about religion and not have it treated as irrelevant or worse (as I wrote in a recent post).
good points Bill. Important necessary dimension you added to my essay.
Anonymous said…
BK: And I am disagreeing that the primary reason that they become Christians is because they are taught that it is true as children.

Right, okay. I will just point out that most people adopt the religion of their parents again, as that is the big evidence here. How else do you explain Hindus mostly coming from Hindu families, etc.?

Pix
Anonymous said...
BK: And I am disagreeing that the primary reason that they become Christians is because they are taught that it is true as children.

Right, okay. I will just point out that most people adopt the religion of their parents again, as that is the big evidence here. How else do you explain Hindus mostly coming from Hindu families, etc.?


what is true for one religion is not necessarily true for all
most people who were liberals or democrats or Repubs were taught that way by family,
Anonymous said…
Joe: what is true for one religion is not necessarily true for all

In this instance it is. People are far, far more likely to adopt the religion of their parents than to adopt another religion altogether (as opposed to denomination).

Joe: most people who were liberals or democrats or Repubs were taught that way by family,

Exactly. So you are now agreeing with me?

Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: what is true for one religion is not necessarily true for all

In this instance it is. People are far, far more likely to adopt the religion of their parents than to adopt another religion altogether (as opposed to denomination).

that doesn't prove anything, It gives you no leverage to work from it's almost 50/50 for Christianity,44% of religious people are not in the group in which they were raised.

Joe: most people who were liberals or democrats or Repubs were taught that way by family,

Exactly. So you are now agreeing with me?

No it disproves your point
Anonymous said…
Joe: that doesn't prove anything, It gives you no leverage to work from it's almost 50/50 for Christianity,44% of religious people are not in the group in which they were raised.

So we are back to moving the goal postys.

The figure of 44% includes moving from one denomination to another. I have already made it clear that that is not what I am talking about. The fact you feel you need to do this shjows you have lost the argument; all you have left is re-cycling statistics already shown to be irrelevant.

Joe: No it disproves your point

How?

Because you assert it does?

Pix
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Joe: that doesn't prove anything, It gives you no leverage to work from it's almost 50/50 for Christianity,44% of religious people are not in the group in which they were raised.

So we are back to moving the goal postys.

The figure of 44% includes moving from one denomination to another. I have already made it clear that that is not what I am talking about. The fact you feel you need to do this shjows you have lost the argument; all you have left is re-cycling statistics already shown to be irrelevant.

It shows you don't listen. I said this before there are times when denominations are as separate as other faiths, you have to take that into account,, you have no figures, In the church of Christ of my boyhood Methodists and Baptists lost and separate from us as Buddhists and Hindus, the 44% incuudes other faiths and unbelief.


Joe: No it disproves your point

How?

Because you assert it does?

I just told you they count as other faiths.

sociologists would count that. the 44% is not form some coffee club that's social science.
Anonymous said…
Joe: It shows you don't listen. I said this before there are times when denominations are as separate as other faiths, you have to take that into account,, you have no figures, In the church of Christ of my boyhood Methodists and Baptists lost and separate from us as Buddhists and Hindus, the 44% incuudes other faiths and unbelief.

But Methodists and Baptists and Catholics all believe the Bible is true. My original point is that Christians assume the bible is true, and that is the basis of pretty much all Christian arguments.

If you want to argue about denominations, that is fine. But it has nothing to do with what I said; just a straw man.

Joe: I just told you they count as other faiths.

Joe, liberal, democrat and Repubs are political affiliations, not faiths. You said "most people who were liberals or democrats or Repubs were taught that way by family,". Sure, it was a couple of days ago, but is your memory really so bad?

Joe: sociologists would count that. the 44% is not form some coffee club that's social science.

But you were responding to what I said, not sociologists.

Okay, given what your memory is like, you clearly need to be reminded what we are disputing. I said:

"...The evidence for this is very clear; Hindus come from Hindu families, Muslims come from Muslim families, Christians come from Christian families...."

Christians, not specific denominations. You do not get to pretend I meant to say denominations, when you quoted me saying Christians.

Pix
Joe: It shows you don't listen. I said this before there are times when denominations are as separate as other faiths, you have to take that into account,, you have no figures, In the church of Christ of my boyhood Methodists and Baptists lost and separate from us as Buddhists and Hindus, the 44% incuudes other faiths and unbelief.

But Methodists and Baptists and Catholics all believe the Bible is true. My original point is that Christians assume the bible is true, and that is the basis of pretty much all Christian arguments.

there are a lot of people who see the Catholic v protestant divide as serious,
Its more complex than just saying they all believe the bible.


If you want to argue about denominations, that is fine. But it has nothing to do with what I said; just a straw man.

It does stop being naïve

Joe: I just told you they count as other faiths.

Joe, liberal, democrat and Repubs are political affiliations, not faiths. You said "most people who were liberals or democrats or Repubs were taught that way by family,". Sure, it was a couple of days ago, but is your memory really so bad?

by that I was saying that just because you believe what your parents do does not mean you have no valid reason for believing it.


Joe: sociologists would count that. the 44% is not form some coffee club that's social science.

But you were responding to what I said, not sociologists.

my major, I was trained as a sociologist


Okay, given what your memory is like, you clearly need to be reminded what we are disputing. I said:

"...The evidence for this is very clear; Hindus come from Hindu families, Muslims come from Muslim families, Christians come from Christian families...."

yes and 44% of Americas do not conform to that,

Christians, not specific denominations. You do not get to pretend I meant to say denominations, when you quoted me saying Christians.


If denom A sees Denom B as not Christian but counterfeit then obviously they do fit it, the 44% includes atheists and other faiths

Pix
1/02/2021 10:37:00 AM
Anonymous said…
The point I really want to get across here Joe, is that I said "Christians come from Christian families", not denominations, and so your figures for denominations are not relevant.

I suspect you know you have lost the argument, and I predict you will therefore ignore that that I said "Christians come from Christian families", and will continue to wage war against that straw man.

Joe: there are a lot of people who see the Catholic v protestant divide as serious,
Its more complex than just saying they all believe the bible.


Straw man. I clearly started "Christians come from Christian families", not denominations.

Joe: It does stop being naïve

I said "Christians come from Christian families" so not relevant.

Joe: by that I was saying that just because you believe what your parents do does not mean you have no valid reason for believing it.

Sure. Then later you said "I just told you they count as other faiths." They are not faiths, Joe.

Joe: my major, I was trained as a sociologist

So what? I clearly started "Christians come from Christian families" so statistics for denominations are not relevant.

Joe: yes and 44% of Americas do not conform to that,

Straw man. I clearly started "Christians come from Christian families", not denominations.

Joe: If denom A sees Denom B as not Christian but counterfeit then obviously they do fit it, the 44% includes atheists and other faiths

I said "Christians come from Christian families" so not relevant.

Pix
Anonymous said…
The point I really want to get across here Joe, is that I said "Christians come from Christian families", not denominations, and so your figures for denominations are not relevant.

yes it is you have totally lost your grasp of the discussion. 44% of people who are religious no longer worship in the group their parents razed them in, That is about families.

I suspect you know you have lost the argument, and I predict you will therefore ignore that that I said "Christians come from Christian families", and will continue to wage war

you are so desperate to win one. But no, you lost not only does the 44% disprove your thesis but so does the 2 million a year new converts to Christianity from other faiths, and the 28% who are not in the same faith anymore. Plus the fact that you never proved parents dopn;t teach valid reasons/



against that straw man.

?????

Joe: there are a lot of people who see the Catholic v protestant divide as serious,
Its more complex than just saying they all believe the bible.

Straw man. I clearly started "Christians come from Christian families", not denominations.


it doesn't matter what you said, it disproves your argument

Joe: It does stop being naïve

I said "Christians come from Christian families" so not relevant.

your argumet was that christians don;t have rational reasons to believe, you didnt prove it, you can;t prove they are not taught rational reasons,

Joe: by that I was saying that just because you believe what your parents do does not mean you have no valid reason for believing it.

Sure. Then later you said "I just told you they count as other faiths." They are not faiths, Joe.

Mixing things u as usual. it proves that parental teachings dont; hold for life always. that disproves your point.

Joe: my major, I was trained as a sociologist

So what? I clearly started "Christians come from Christian families" so statistics for denominations are not relevant.

2 million a year don't. the 28% don't

3/2021 01:08:00 AM
Your thesis depends upon the assumption that religious people always stay true to their parents teaching in adulthood There significant numbers who don;t.

"One of the most striking findings from the 2007 Landscape Survey was the large number of people who have left their childhood faith." Pew

*The 2007 survey found that more than one-in-four American adults (28%) have changed their religious affiliation from that in which they were raised. This number includes people who have changed from one major religious tradition to another,

* the survey found that roughly 44% of Americans now profess a religious affiliation different from that in which they were raised...pew

* 2 Millions news Christians a year from other faiths,

you lost Donald. stop whining Donnie
Anonymous said…
Pix: I suspect you know you have lost the argument, and I predict you will therefore ignore that that I said "Christians come from Christian families", and will continue to wage war against that straw man.

Joe: yes it is you have totally lost your grasp of the discussion. 44% of people who are religious no longer worship in the group their parents razed them in, That is about families.

Here is what I said in the comments in the other thread:
___

You automatically assume that that is true, because you were raised to believe that by Christian parents. It was instilled in you from an early age; to you it is just a fact.

For anyone outside of Christian culture, that is not the case. Why should a Hindu imagine his soul needs to be saved? He will not. Virtually all Christian arguments ultimately come down to:

* The Bible is true
* Therefore the Bible is true

This is true of pretty much all your arguments, as well as the ones I find on the Internet at CARM and elsewhere. That works for you and your fellow Christians, you were raised in a Christian culture that just assumed the Bible is true. But you will not recruit anyone from outside Christian cultures with those arguments.

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: yes it is you have totally lost your grasp of the discussion. 44% of people who are religious no longer worship in the group their parents razed them in, That is about families.

So the background is whether:

* The Bible is true
* Therefore the Bible is true

... is the basis of all arguments for Christianity. The premise is held by all Christians, whatever the denomination. A Protestant may have been raised in a Catholic, but he was raised to believe the Bible is true.

Joe: you are so desperate to win one. But no, you lost not only does the 44% disprove your thesis but so does the 2 million a year new converts to Christianity from other faiths, and the 28% who are not in the same faith anymore. Plus the fact that you never proved parents dopn;t teach valid reasons/

Most of that 44% were raised to believe the Bible is true, and still do, so that circular argument is still blindly accepted.

Joe: it doesn't matter what you said, it disproves your argument

No, Joe, it does not. The issue revolves around being taught to blindly believe the Bible is true. That is true of all Christian denominations.

Joe: your argumet was that christians don;t have rational reasons to believe, you didnt prove it, you can;t prove they are not taught rational reasons,

My argument is that virtually all arguments for Christianity assume the Bible is true. That is not rational because it is circular.

Joe: Mixing things u as usual. it proves that parental teachings dont; hold for life always. that disproves your point.

Of course parental teachings don't always hold for life; I never said they were. Another straw man.

Joe: Your thesis depends upon the assumption that religious people always stay true to their parents teaching in adulthood There significant numbers who don;t.

My thesis is that arguments for Christianity assume the Bible is true, and they do so because Christians - regardless of denomination - are taught the bible is true from an early age.

Pix


Anonymous said...
Joe: yes it is you have totally lost your grasp of the discussion. 44% of people who are religious no longer worship in the group their parents razed them in, That is about families.

It's also about religious identification that's what Pew said it's about,

So the background is whether:

* The Bible is true
* Therefore the Bible is true

how do you get that out of 44%? Your face saving device. you lost I disproved your bullshit you want to cover-up by pretending that I don;t have
reasoning about my arguments,.


... is the basis of all arguments for Christianity. The premise is held by all Christians, whatever the denomination. A Protestant may have been raised in a Catholic, but he was raised to believe the Bible is true.


you know that is foolish ignorant garbage, Kant was Christian are you telling me the Categorical--imperative is just the Bible is true? you can't beat my logic and you can't out researche me, in your arrogant stupidity you can't face those facts, so you pretend my great arguments are just that BS because you can't face reality,

Joe: you are so desperate to win one. But no, you lost not only does the 44% disprove your thesis but so does the 2 million a year new converts to Christianity from other faiths, and the 28% who are not in the same faith anymore. Plus the fact that you never proved parents dopn;t teach valid reasons/

Most of that 44% were raised to believe the Bible is true, and still do, so that circular argument is still blindly accepted.

You don't know that it doesn't break it down you are guessing,

Joe: it doesn't matter what you said, it disproves your argument

No, Joe, it does not. The issue revolves around being taught to blindly believe the Bible is true. That is true of all Christian denominations.

You have no evidence for curriculum, just your hate talking


Joe: your argument was that Christians don;t have rational reasons to believe, you didnt prove it, you can;t prove they are not taught rational reasons,

My argument is that virtually all arguments for Christianity assume the Bible is true. That is not rational because it is circular.

that is so stupid and ignorant. you have no understanding of religious education, I went to liberal seminary they would laugh in your face at the things you; es you moronic pultroon. They didn't believe in hell. They did not believe in inerrency,(that in itself disproves your statement) they did not believe in Genesis they did not believe in the flood ir the Exodus shall I go on dumbass? you know shit, you know nothing nothing,


2 million new Christians a year come in from other faiths so they are not basing their faith on on their parents, that disproves your bull shit,

Now I am closing this section

Popular posts from this blog

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

Exodus 22:18 - Are Followers of God to Kill Witches?

Revamping and New Articles at the CADRE Site

The Bogus Gandhi Quote

Discussing Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Why Christian Theism Is Almost Certainly True: A Reply to Cale Nearing

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

Scientifically Documented Miracles

The Criteria of Embarrassment and Jesus' Baptism in the Gospel of Mark

The Meaning of the Manger