Bumble Bee Tuna

Which religion has the least effective brainwashing machine?
Jews? Christians? Muslims? Catholics? Mormons? Hindus? Which one gets the most atheists coming out of the fold?

I really have no idea, but I'd put my money on Catholicism or Judaism, I guess.

-B

christ-on-a-stick

Interesting question Bee Man.

Sometimes I've thought that because there are so many "lapsed" and "in-name-only" Catholics and Jews, they may seem to actually RETAIN more people who continue to "identify" as Catholic or Jewish but don't actually go to church/synagogue, pray, or think about their religion much in general but still self-identify just as a matter of tradition or apathy.

Whereas, fundamental Xianity (speficically, not including the liberal types) is so inherently dogmatic that it may lead people who begin questioning to eventually "flip a 180" in light of the black/whiteness of it, instead of just gradually "slipping away" but still saying out of habit "I'm Catholic" or "I'm Jewish". Particularly because of the strong focus on fellowship with other believers/frequent isolation from the "secular world" (in fundamentalist Xianity), it may be the most difficult to be on the fringe and push one to be either IN or OUT.

However I may well be talking out of my butt because I don't have any hard #s on this stuff. I am speaking mainly from personal experience and the observed experiences of the many once-fundy-Xians who, upon cracking open the door of disbelief, have realized that by its very nature it was a matter of either shutting the door tightly (staying fundy) or letting the floodgates open and abandoning ship.

malookiemaloo

What about atheists who become Christians?

It has happened you know!!


m

topane

All Christians were once atheists . As were all Muslims, Jews, etc.


[edited for spelling]

Kintaro

There is one exception to that. It's too graphic to fully explain, but it involves baptizing a certain liquid then having it unite with an ovula.

Other than that, no one could be conceived with a religion.

lpetrich

However, I don't think that being a mental blank really counts.

Shake

I think there's a matter of choice here, though. I'm not sure your example even qualifies, though I can't be sure because you weren't specific enough. If you mean baptizing semen (which I'd love to have someone explain how that's done) and then performing in vitro fertilization, I don't think that counts, because most people will agree that life doesn't begin at least until conception. Obviously, there are many who think it doesn't start until well after that, but that's a whole other thread. Also, even if you're discussing the odd possibility of in utero baptism, there's no guarantee the fetus will survive (to) birth.

At any rate, this type of argument is moot IMO, because we're discussing what people believe (or don't). AFAIK, there's no proof of thought processes of fetuses. As a newborn, there aren't thoughts per se like you and I have. A newborns' mind is trying to comprehend all sorts of things, mostly new sensory inputs. A newborn is flooded with sights: shapes and colors that aren't yet fully recognized; sounds: from voices to machines and daily sounds of life, which are further not comprehensible. Sure, infants seem to recognize their parents voices, but language comprehension can take years. What I'm getting at is that the first months (even years) are spent simply trying to figure out one's environment (to include one's body), learn to communicate, and other survival type things. We develop beliefs based on experience first, and later, as communication becomes possible through interaction with people (typically one's parents/guardians). Beliefs are learned, especially higher type ones such as religion that require more of a cognitive maturity. Thus, we are all atheists at birth.

I believe a birth-atheist, one who has never had any religious training could be converted, but not a True Atheist (TM), who has arrived at his/her position through reason and logic. But this point is moot too, malookiemaloo, because atheism is NOT a religion. It is the lack of religion, which is further not the opposite of religion either. Some atheists indeed are anti-religion, but not all.

Anyway, to answer the op, I think COAS has stated it very well. I agree with her assessment of the "lapsed Catholics" and such who continue on in name only. My opinion here is likewise based only on personal experience; I have no numbers either.

keyser_soze

I find that an inordinate number of atheists used to be christian. I deconverted when reading old greek and roman authors. But I couldn't tell you the number of times I have heard from an atheist, "I was just sitting there in church, and the message was kind of slow so I was just reading, and when he stopped to change to another verse, and I kept reading...you know what? This isn't RIGHT!" I think if the christian faith stopped trying to hide the little skeletons, they would lose less people. But many seem to find that the feeling that they've been mislead and sometimes outright lied too all of those years annoying.

keyser_soze

BTW, my wife's first shock was when she accidentally read down two more lines and found the "women shouldn't speak in church, and cannot teach thing". She now knows it's bullshit but she likes her social circle there. Needless to say, she doesn't read ahead anymore.

topane

True, but a person wouldn't have a concept of a god until he heard of or was told about one. I can't imagine a person not hearing about a god until he was 20 but I guess it is possible.