Ojuice5001

Koy, your idea may be right about the majority of people, but the exceptions are numerous. I would like you to explain two members of my family: me, and my cousin Josh.

I am a theist, believing in gods you would consider fictional. However, they are different gods than that of anyone I know in person, namely mine are the gods of Rome. I have had experiences of the Roman goddess of the past, whose name is Postverta. My experiences of her are as real as the typical Christian's experiences of Jesus. My parents brought me up as a Christian, and no one at all came to me to indoctrinate me as a Religio Romana. Yet here I am, praying to Jupiter and Postverta. How do you explain this?

Also, my aunt and uncle did just what the Reverend Dobson advises against. They gave my cousin Josh (and his brothers) little or no religious indoctrination, so that he could make his own choice. For a long time, he was an atheist, as you and Dobson predict he would be. But sometime during his college years, he converted to Christianity, and now is a minister who believes (gag) that the story of Noah's Ark actually happened. He was not emotionally disturbed in the same way as almost all of those adults who join an organization that is uncontroversially called a cult. Once again, something more entered into the picture besides cult indoctrination. I should note that neither my conversion nor Josh's occured in a context of ignorance of the world in general.

Now, I am not denying that many people, probably a majority, can be explained by your "cult indoctrination" theory. I am saying that, if my family alone has two exceptions, your theory must be incomplete. There is some other factor that enters into play. Something like, I don't know, Postverta (probably Jehovah too) actually existing. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

[ April 26, 2002: Message edited by: Ojuice5001 ]</p>

Tristan Scott

Well Freethinker, it was all over the news and was a huge contoversy when the Bell Curve was first published. The studies showed that people of different racial and ethnic backgrounds had, as groups, different IQs, and in the case of black people the difference was considerable. It didn't take long for the racists to take that ball and run with it. The whole episode points out that statistical information should be used with a great deal of thought and care before drawing conclusions from the data. Your statement:

may be true, but what you are doing seems to be drawing conclusions from this data, and that is something else, entirely.

Easy Be

IMO, I feel your average atheist is generally more intelligent than your average theist. The reason is because a higher percentage of atheists were once religious and questioned their beliefs thus changing them. Now I'm not saying that theists don't question their beliefs as well just not as high a percent. A lot of theists just believe because it sounds better. Few atheists are of the same nature.

The only problem with this reasoning is that it doesn't explain the people that lack the ability to question there beliefs (i.e. brainwashed christians).

My premises are

1. People who question their beliefs are generally more intelligent then those who don't. Especially ones who question their belief and change their belief because of their questioning.

2. On average a higher percentage of atheists question their beliefs than theists.

3. Because of 1, 2 the average atheist is more intelligent than the average theist.

free12thinker

In reading #3 to this reply, and earlier replies from Brighid and Brad Messenger, there are whispers suggesting that I am not the only one that believes a higher level of intelligence MAY exist. Here are their replies:

Quote by Brad Messenger
"I will agree, though, that the more intelligent a person is, the more likely they will reject the rigid structure of Church doctrine."

My Reply
This doesn't imply Atheism by any stretch, but it does imply that buying the doctrine could be a result of less intelligence

Quote by Brighid
"Theistic belief is not really a matter of intelligence, even though many uneducated and arguably unintelligent people are theists. I think that one finds a higher degree of atheism within highly educated circles as opposed to uneducated or poorly educated circles, therefore leading one to conclude that education is ONE part of the equation but not the only factor one should onsider."

My Reply
What about the second sentence in this reply. If we find a higher defree of atheism within highly educated circles as opposed to uneducated circles, doesn't that say something about a connection with atheism and intelligence?

free12thinker

I probably should've worded it "there seems to be a pattern" rather than "there has to be a pattern". Fair critique on your part

free12thinker

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tristan Scott:
Quote by Tristan
Well Freethinker, it was all over the news and was a huge contoversy when the Bell Curve was first published. The studies showed that people of different racial and ethnic backgrounds had, as groups, different IQs, and in the case of black people the difference was considerable. It didn't take long for the racists to take that ball
and run with it. The whole episode points out that statistical information should be used with a great deal of thought and care before drawing conclusions from the data.

My Reply
Sorry Tristan. I wasn't around when the Bell Curve was first published, but my earlier reply holds true. Racists are racists and will do whatever they can to justify their actions. Thankfully, we step in when we need to. I don't see, however, shunning all statistical data because of what select groups may do with it.
-------------------------------------------------
Quote by Tristan
This may be true, but what you are doing seems to be drawing conclusions from this data, and that is something else, entirely.

My Reply
I think we can draw conclusions from data. What else are we supposed to draw conclusions from?

Koyaanisqatsi

Ok...?

They are fictional. You, however, believe they are not. That's a subtle, but important distinction.

Un hunh...

What does this mean? You dreamed about her? You had waking hallucinations in which she appeared? You sat on a park bench talking to her?

Or is it simply that you read a book on Roman mythology years ago and in so rejecting your parents influence on a subconscious level, your mind simply transposed the kinds of esoteric attributions your parents would have applied to Jesus to Postverta (i.e., "we prayed to Jesus and we got a new car" or "we accepted Jesus into our hearts and feel his presence in our lives" kinds of self-delusional "experiences" that are actually nothing more than wish-fulfillment projected onto mythological characters)?

So did mine. What sect?

But you were previously indoctrinated into the acceptance of theism, yes? Which theism is, IMO, irrelevant and that's what I was addressing, even though I used (and use) the christian cult as the most prevalent example.

In this scenario, IMO (and you asked), you have simply demonstrated the first stage of deprogramming; you have rejected the specific icon of theistic indoctrination, but retained the more general indoctrination of acceptance of deity.

It's not too difficult to explain, but it is, of course, just my take on it.

You have unresolved anger/rebellion issues with your parents that are manifesting themselves in the deliberate punishment of your parents through pagan worship, something you subconsciously (or consciously) know would be an ongoing "fuck you" to your dear old mum and dad.

Remember, everybody, he asked!

Me?

You say he "converted" to christianity? Isn't it more likely that he "reverted" to christianity, the cult of his parents, friends and community?

Indoctrination does not always entail men in dark suits endlessly repeating the same illogical nonsense over and over and over again. That's Catholocism .

You say your parents were christians. Were his parents christians? It doesn't necessarily matter whether or not they actively forced him into christianity. My parents never actively forced us into christianity, they just told us over and over and over again, "this is what we believe..." and took us to their church every Sunday when we were kids.

We grew up in an all Catholic neighborhood (though we were Presbyterian) in a suburb of St. Louis, where every single one of our neighbors except the ones we were told to avoid, also went to church.

My family, friends and community (hell, the whole country then) were therefore almost 99.998% believers in some form of theism (primarily christianity).

Was I ever beaten with a cat-o-nine tail and told "believe or burn in hell?" No, but then indoctrination works in extremely subtle ways as evidenced by the fact that your cousin chose christianity (the most familiar) instead of something more logical, like Buddhism.

In your case, you chose the origins of christianity.

The christian cult encompases not just all of the United States, but most of North and South America, Europe and many parts of Asia.

It is not just pervasive, it is ingrained and rooted; one might even say inherent from birth as a result of the environment one is born into.

Do I consider cult indoctrination to be the only reason people are cult members? No, as I stated in my post. I think ignorance has a large place and probably goes hand-in-hand with personal desperation and just plain old ordinary fear as well. People don't want to face life, thus God.

Nor do I consider it the "fault" of people that they are cult members like I was. I know from personal experience how seductive and subtle the enticement of the christian cult, especially, can be. That's not what sets me off.

Brighid said it best right here:

What that "something" is, to my mind, logically seems to be cult indoctrination, but, again, that indoctrination is not done in a little black room with a bare bulb by one person in one sitting.

Look at it this way. You were born in Canada, but your parents moved to say, China when you were three.

Although you are initially a Canadian, you will unquestionably become immersed in the language, social moors and community standards of China, regardless of the overriding fact that you are initially a Canadian.

By the time you're eight, nine years old (Dr. Dobson?) you will be, for all intents and purposes, a Chinaman.

Were you "indoctrinated?" Yes.

Now let's say (no disrespect or insult meant to anyone from China) that living in that culture, you start to disagree with the manner in which the community leaders view human rights; that the community in general seems to have a marked, irrational disparity between the way in which some people are treated as opposed to others and that no logical reason can be discerned by you as to why this is so. Worse, that your friends and family don't agree with your assessment or otherwise tell you not to object or think about such things; that the leaders of the community know better than you do about what is and is not good for the community, etc.

Can you then ever extricate yourself from that culture and "reprogram" yourself to be an "Canadian," which was your default birth nationality?

I think you see where I'm going with this. Obviously in this analogy you should replace "Canadian" with Atheist and "Chinese" with "Christian" to get the point.

It's nature vs. nurture and it is by no means overt in all cases, but it certainly, arguably, is prevelant and of primary concern, IMO.

Irrelevant, but noted.

As already granted by me in my post.

Well, then, provide your case for such a claim as I have provided mine.

I am simply arguing that it makes far more sense that you are subconsciously responding to your parents' theistic indoctrination with your own interpretation, than an ancient Roman goddess from pagan mythology factually exists.

That or you are simply tapping into a level of consciousness as yet uncharted by humanity that you are interpreting to be the diety of your choice, which.

But if you have compelling evidence outside of "I just know it," then please present it. Having never before heard of Postverta, I would be very interested in reviewing your evidence for her factual existence; especially since you are the first person in my 36 years on this planet to ever mention such deity, let alone claim that she factually exists and actually intervenese in some manner in your life.

Ojuice5001

Most of the answers to your questions about me are in my response to Han's thread, "Ojuice5001, I have a question." Josh's parents were Christians; since I wasn't there, I don't know how much influence they gave him (above zero, I think, but not a whole lot). Keep in mind, though, that he was an atheist until his college years. If he was an atheist for that long, what caused him to become otherwise? My parents are Lutherans, and their Christian influences and your parents' were probably pretty similar.

cricket

Brighid,

In Phantoms in the Brain neurologist VS Ramachandran discusses this possibility. Patients with temporal lobe epilepsy can develop a religiosity beyond compare. Ramachandran therefore suspects that, to a lesser degree, "normal" religious adherents may also have a brain-based propensity for their beliefs.

Koyaanisqatsi

OJ--

I think I gave a reasonable enough analysis based on what I could. As for your brother being an "atheist until college," I think that, too, was reasonably addressed in my post.

What is your response?