At 11/2/09 12:31 PM, Proteas wrote:
It's been my experience on here with certain discussion (religious discussions in particular), the atheist/agnostics on this board view anyone having a religious background as having been indoctrinated into that school of thought. They can't fathom why anyone would actually choose to believe in a God or any form of organized religion, so they seek the undermine their opponent's credibility by painting them as being brainwashed.
This is the motivation for these atheists? Inability to fathom faith. : /
But really... doesn't this just add up to nothing more than a personal attack on that individual, and not actual debate on the ideas they put forth? You don't know anything about that individual's personal life or their motivations for being religious, you're just taking one fact they've given you and making a very broad generalization about them.
Yes and no. While one may take offense to the notion that their personal beliefs aren't perceived valid, the argument itself is not always intended to be a personal attack. Oftentimes, it may simply be identification of one's refusal to hear reason. Anyway, you can't really claim that it's an atheist arguer's prerogative to undermine another's argument by questioning one's credibility via painted brainwashing because... well, it's taking one fact and making a broad sweeping generalization in the same way you apparently detest enough to invent a new description of the alleged logical fallacy it presents.
Which brings me to the name of this topic; Argumentum Ad Inculco, or "Argument by Inculcation/Indoctrination." Something to call out your opponent on when they are using Strawman, Hasty Generalization, and Argumentum Ad Hominem against you sooner than debating what your actually saying.
Which brings me to debate about what you're actually saying. You don't think that those of faith are indoctrinated? Faith. I direct you to the 6th definition. Brainwashing. I direct you to the third result and second definition.
The words are intrinsically linked in meaning. Faith is the systematic brainwashing of a person, such that no logical argument, nor evidence contrary, nor lack of evidence concordant can convince one that they should think other than their conviction.
Now, that's not to say that faith is necessarily a bad thing. After all, so is most society, manners, human speech, etc. Without a proper upbringing, a human being won't necessarily be capable of communicating with others linguistically. I think everyone agrees that education is vital for a successful human race. But if you're truly a man of faith, you need not take offense at a man of reason's suggestion that you are wrong. The same way as a man of reason I need not take offense at a man of faith's conviction that I am wrong.
Anyway, as one who does not believe in God, nor ever observed phenomena that couldn't be attributed to anything else except God, I feel confident saying he doesn't exist. That doesn't mean I'm doomed to hell, either. For as someone who considers himself reasonable and humble, the revelation of such proof to convince me otherwise doesn't disagree with my generally atheist demeanor. Yet, an alleged God is to be lord over my life without ever having communicated with me directly? Unless his insistence is that I trust in those around me, in which case who am I to trust? The 10 commandments decree that I listen to my parents. Well, my mother is of faith and my father of reason and NOT faith. They both trust greatly in people, without being fools. I believe quite firmly in people, but the messages people give conflict with themselves and those of others.
It all leads me to settle on the conclusion that faith is merely an exercise in trusting an ever-expanding population of peers so that that population may continue expanding AGAINST my instinctive drive for survival that tells me not to trust any beyond the tried and true personal circle (and even then: guardedly). That sort of mindset screams 'man-made' to me. It doesn't say anything about the true existence of a deity of any sort.
Now, as our capacity for reason has grown, so has our insistence on faith. Technology has displaced much of the need for faith in today's world, as a result atheism is more tolerated than ever before. Why? Because people don't fear as much in the modern world. Life is relatively stable in large cities. There's always food, always water, always shelter, and always others. We can even communicate anonymously, so the fear of persecution or judgment from peers is mooted.
Even so, I don't think we'll ever quite outgrow our first invention: faith. I think it's a cornerstone of society and that it should remain so. The institutions surrounding it, I don't know are as important. They don't know either. Religion is as fluid as technology as the years have worn on.
Anyway. Enough rambling.
