Originally posted by FreakyKBHOriginally posted by FreakyKBH
Influencing, perhaps.
Defining, absolutely not.
No matter what the wanna-be statisticians herein attempt to prove with their unfounded analysis of the information they spout, there are far too many 'exceptions to the rule,' as it were, which render such iron-clad proclamations null and void.
An American atheist, a Chinese Christian, an Arab Buddhist, a Jew ...[text shortened]... ive that no one is bound by upbringing, education or circumstance, but rather, their own conscience.
"... all proof positive that no one is bound by upbringing, education or circumstance, but rather, their own conscience." (italics mine)
__________
Ditto
FreakyKBH: all proof positive that no one is bound by upbringing, education or circumstance, but rather, their own conscience.The rhetorical error/rhetorical trick both you and FreakyKBH are engaging in is that you are ignoring the fact that no one claims that a person is "bound" by upbringing, education, location or circumstance.
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Ditto
- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 23322
Originally posted by FreakyKBHPerhaps I should have wrote influences instead of factors. Of course there's going to be exceptions to the rule, we are after all humans but I would still argue that a Christian breeding an atheist would still be a result of their upbringing or general day to day interactions with other people.
Influencing, perhaps.
Defining, absolutely not.
No matter what the wanna-be statisticians herein attempt to prove with their unfounded analysis of the information they spout, there are far too many 'exceptions to the rule,' as it were, which render such iron-clad proclamations null and void.
An American atheist, a Chinese Christian, an Arab Buddhist, a ...[text shortened]... that no one is bound by upbringing, education or circumstance, but rather, their own conscience.
Originally posted by Trev33So when a Christian and an atheist have a child does that child become an agnostic?
Perhaps I should have wrote influences instead of factors. Of course there's going to be exceptions to the rule, we are after all humans but I would still argue that a Christian breeding an atheist would still be a result of their upbringing or general day to day interactions with other people.
If so, it could be all about genetics. 😛
Originally posted by FMFI don't disagree on all points, but I consider much of the input is more a result of 'identified as' than necessarily personally-held beliefs.
I don't think anyone would claim that people are "bound" by upbringing, education, location or circumstance (indeed I know numerous Christians here who converted from Islam, and also Muslims who converted from Christianity), but the very uneven distribution of what religions and beliefs are founded on people's own consciences quite clearly is largely determined ...[text shortened]... ifiably and understandably ~ defined and identified as being Christian, or Muslim, or Hindu etc.
Most religious adherents are woefully under-informed on the basic tenets of their given religion--- and that 'given' is far more influential than anything else.
As you pointed out, people are raised in a system and--- for purposes of surveys and census takers--- are considered in their respective categories by default, or unless otherwise denounced.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIf you'd been born and grown up in the street I live in here, you would most likely be a Muslim now and you'd probably have been just as convinced of your Islamic beliefs as you now are of your Christian ones. Talking about how "woefully under-informed" you might or might not be, or would have been if you'd grown up differently from how you did, is all a red herring.
I don't disagree on all points, but I consider much of the input is more a result of 'identified as' than necessarily personally-held beliefs.
Most religious adherents are woefully under-informed on the basic tenets of their given religion--- and that 'given' is far more influential than anything else.
As you pointed out, people are raised in a system an ...[text shortened]... kers--- are considered in their respective categories by default, or unless otherwise denounced.
