Jesus Camp - Religion or Brainwashing?

[Rogue Warrior]

Clearly it is brainwashing to turn children into Bush's Christian foot soldiers so he can invade the Middle East for his god.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Theists love to rally around the misconception that "atheistic morality" is subjective. The reality is that religious morality (and religion itself) the most egregious offender when it comes to being subject, whereas "atheistic morality" is almost entirely objective. This isn't even the pot calling the kettle black.

Exactly. Morality is not 'absolute' and 'unchanging' when it can be redefined at will.

[Thor the Bassis]

brainwashing

 

Indoctrination that forces people to abandon their beliefs in favor of another set of beliefs.

atheism is the absence of belief in deities

All people are born atheists as they do not believe in deities - they have had no exposure to the idea of a God or Gods. From this we can show that most religions are infact brainwashing as most religions at first exposure tell a child to start believing in a deity and so tell them to stop believing in their belief and start believing in the religions.

 

RELIGION = BRAINWASHING

[Jae Onasi]

Two facts:

Many atheists think religion is brainwashing.

Many religious people think atheists are immoral.

 

brainwashing

 

Indoctrination that forces people to abandon their beliefs in favor of another set of beliefs.

 

atheism is the absence of belief in deities

 

From these sources we can deduce two things. Firstly that all people are born atheists as they do not believe in deities - they have had no exposure to the idea of a God or Gods. From this we can show that most religions are infact brainwashing as most religions at first exposure tell a child to start believing in a deity and so tell them to stop believing in their belief and start believing in the religions.

 

We can also deduce that atheists aren't immoral as the belief in atheism is simply the absence of a belief in deities and so has no impact on how immoral the individual is - this comes from other life experiences.

 

From this I can conclude that atheists aren't immoral beings.

 

Also I can conclude that religious people are stereotypical, brainwashing liars.

 

 

How in the world does an opinion on the morality of atheists have anything to do with theists allegedly brainwashing?

 

That's like saying:

Atheists think religious people like chocolate.

Religious people think atheists are immoral.

Atheists aren't immoral,

Therefore, religious people must like chocolate.

[Rogue Warrior]

I think it might be an attempt to make atheists out to not being entitled to pass comment.

[Thor the Bassis]

How in the world does an opinion on the morality of atheists have anything to do with theists allegedly brainwashing?

You haven't followed the argument. From the definition of atheism everone is born atheist - they have no knowledge of God - as atheism is simply the absence of a belief in God then they are atheist. As brainwashing is imposing beliefs on a person that goes against their prior knowledge then religious people have to brainwash.

 

I copied this from another thread I was posting in coz it was virtually identical topic the immoral bit isn't relevant.

 

I think it might be an attempt to make atheists out to not being entitled to pass comment.

I have no idea where you got that idea from. The links on this thread are crazy and i'd never back any of them up.

[MrWally]

(Sorry for the slight thread necromancy, but I can’t go to bed without letting this out)

 

Uh oh… I feel a little rant coming up…. Sorry guys…

 

I think the whole issue of misinterpretation can be summed up by looking at Dagobahn Eagle's reoccurring reference to the verse Matthew 6:5 "Whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites who love to pray while standing in congregations so that people can see them."

 

While at first glance this verse does in fact appear to be saying "Christians can't pray in Church," one cannot criticize this until they have an understanding of the context it appears in. I am not quite giving my interpretation on the verse; I am simply going to provide insight as to what is being referred to. It is referencing the Jewish Pharisees who would stand on street corners while surrounded by crowds shouting praise to God simply to show off how religious they were. The verse in Matthew chapter 6 is not saying that people should never pray in public, but that people should not "be like the hypocrites [the Pharisees]." See, that connection is the key; the verse is telling Christians not to act as the Pharisees would and show off, but to pray because of their love, honor, and devotion toward God. If you were to read other parts of the Gospels this would make much more sense to you.

 

And this in and of itself is exactly the problem. Normally I don't delve into topics in The Senate because I don't have the time to read the long debates but today, given the holiday and my insomnia, I actually went through and read this entire topic and I am somewhat disgusted by people's gross misinterpretations of the Bible and Christianity in general. I don't want to go on a religious tirade here, because honestly I dislike it when anyone (Christian or Atheist, Republican or Democrat) decides to shove their beliefs down someone else’s throat, but I do want to attempt to clear a few points up not for the purpose of disproving people's claims, but to make sure than people can have a Christian's point of view.

 

Looking back there are several discussions on the original clip's portrayal of young Christians praying "to" Bush and many people here started discussing how disgusted they are by Christianity brainwashing children into submitting to George Bush and his ideology. I do not believe this is the case, however. In my opinion I believe they are practicing Jesus' teaching summarized in his words "Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s" which, upon further examination of the context, say that people should be obedient to the government they are under, therefore I do believe that no matter who the president was at the time, they would have brought up the image of that leader despite his religious beliefs, they would have thus prayed that the leader would not be swayed into temptation and lead the country into evil, or even something as simple and praying that God would protect the health and safety of the president. I do not see them as "worshipping Bush" but rather as praying for and giving their respects to the leader of their nation, as their Bible told them they should.

 

Additionally, the topic was raised of why people would believe that an Atheist who lives a good and moral life would not go to heaven. I just wanted to clear something up and attempt to provide a little insight into the Christian ideology. Christianity essentially believes that mankind is born into sin and thus, by being imperfect beings, we are separated from God. However, when God sent his son to Earth (Jesus) to die, Jesus sacrificed his own perfect life in place of the punishment awaiting us for our imperfection. You see, Christianity says that because God is so perfect, someone who is sinful, or imperfect, cannot go to Heaven, so thus one must be cleansed of their imperfections in order to be with God. And the only way for a human to cleanse themselves of their sin is to accept the gift given to them by God’s grace of sending his perfect son to die for us. By accepting this, Christianity says that a human is cleansed of their sin and made perfect in God’s eyes, and while they can still commit sin, as long as they repent for their imperfection and do their best to live a life according to the teachings of Jesus, then they can go to Heaven (the entrance to Heaven then, you see, is not determined by how “good” someone is but rather of their acceptance of a free gift given to them by God. However, the gift also includes their submittance to living a Christian lifestyle (which, I should add, is not often seen in the lifestyles of the radical, conservative Christians who are seen in the Media). So do you see where the Christian belief is coming from? They say that Atheists can’t go to Heaven because Atheists (from a Christian’s perspective) essentially say “hey, you’re offering me this great gift but I don’t care for it and I don’t even believe you exist, so no thanks.” Therefore, even if they live a moral life and are “good people,” they don’t accept what is freely being given to them (in essence, they decide to turn down the offer for Heaven on their own accord), and thus they do not “pass” the entrance to Heaven due to their natural-born sin. But ultimately I think Jae summed it up wonderfully when she said “if you're an atheist and decline to believe in God, why do you want to be with Him in heaven and have a relationship with Him there but not here?”

So I’m sorry for the long religious rant, and I don’t want to appear to radical or domineering, but it really annoys me when I see people stereotype (or attempt to stereotype) any religious group or any group of people in general… especially when many of their opinions come from a (no offense to anyone) relatively uninformed (or misinformed) perspective. On the other hand, I suppose I should recognize the fact that all of what I’ve said is just a “perspective” and that I am only one person giving their point of view, but ultimately I just want to ensure that my perspective (and what I’ve found to be the perspective of the majority of Christians that I’ve talked to… and trust me that’s a lot, my parents were missionaries and I’ve lived in some very, very Christian and very, very non-Christian environments) is heard and understood by the people here, whether you choose to agree or not.

 

Also, please don’t try to rebuke or argue against me until you’ve really thought about what I’ve had to say. Additionally, I’d like to apologize if my writing is slightly incoherent… it’s late and I’m not feeling well and I’m fairly tired

[Ray Jones]

“if you're an atheist and decline to believe in God, why do you want to be with Him in heaven and have a relationship with Him there but not here?”

Well basically, it's not so much because the Atheist wants to be with god, but more questioning the "fact" that someone who did nothing but good in his entire life would go to hell just because he's not believing, while someone who did really bad things for all of his life could go to heaven just because he starts believing on his 70th birthday and "truly regrets" what he has done. See it as as try to point out some unjust illogicality, as it appears to some Atheist, and not because Atheists want to go to heaven.

[MrWally]

First off, I'll just remind you that you should probably quote Jae instead of me, just to give her credit.

 

Secondly, what the point is though is that being "good" or "bad" isn't what allows someone to enter heaven, it's their acceptance of God's gift. That is how Christianity is different from every other major religion out there (in fact, I personally have never heard of a religion like Christianity) where the God or supreme power saves the people instead of the people saving themselves. Other religions require people to follow strict laws or accomplish certain tasks to ensure a pleasant afterlife, but in Christianity people are saved by accepting a gift from God in which they are forgiven for what they have done wrong.

[Ray Jones]

First off, I'll just remind you that you should probably quote Jae instead of me, just to give her credit.

Check. ;

 

Secondly, what the point is though is that being "good" or "bad" isn't what allows someone to enter heaven, it's their acceptance of God's gift.

But what's the deal with sin then?

[MrWally]

The idea is that man is separated from God by sin, the sin we are naturally born with as human beings. Since God is a perfect we are unable to be with him as long as we live in sin, but God's gift to humanity was his son, Jesus, who lived a perfect life, and since he was born from a virgin clearly not like other humans who were naturally born into sin. When Jesus sacrificed himself on the cross he essentially took the entire weight of mankind's sin on his own shoulders, and thus gave us the greatest gift we could ever receive (the opportunity of eternal life). Therefore, if we as humans admit that we have sin and fallen short of God's glory and accept the gift from God through his son, then we are cleansed of sin and capable of being in Heaven with God.

 

Again, I really don't want to sound preechy or as if I'm trying to shove religion down anyone's throat, I just want to ensure that everyone understands the true meaning and ideology of Christianity before they criticize or reject it.

[LukeDavis93]

I would really be glad if people would stop calling christians extremests, I mean so me and my freinds jumped a Satan worshipping kid , but that doesn't mean we're extremests

[Ray Jones]

Okay, I think I understand what you mean, MrWally, and it actually made some sense to me. Thanks for sharing your views on Christianity with me.

 

(And, while it cannot be wrong, with the rest of the internet crowd, too. )

[Samuel Dravis]

If we're expected to acknowledge this gift, then I suppose we should be notified that it exists. Ignorance does not equal denial.

 

Suppose this gift analogy is thought of another way: Someone places a gift on your doorstep which contains a message on how to truly find God. This gift is invisible, intangible, doesn't smell, can't be heard or tasted. Its existence does not follow from any logic known to us, and what people have told us about the gift is either contradictory, confused or just plain nonsensical. After placing this gift, our generous benefactor finds he has informed us about God, and therefore we should be judged accordingly...

 

I agree, we should be responsible for our actions. But I don't think we should be held to account for acts of God.

 

Why would I want to be with God? Perhaps a better question is: who would not, if they only knew?

 

There are many who don't know. Can it be said of them that they've made a choice when they do not see any other option?

 

But how does God react to this? Does it mean he actually intended that these select, ignorant people to be eternally separated from him without a reasonable ability to avoid it? If so, then it would seem that Jesus didn't die for all people, but only some people. Why?

 

Now I'm sure you have a handy answer that consists of "Well, the gift is given and people are aware of it and its implications." --But I can tell you that I am aware of neither, although I have certainly had a fairly positive exposure to Christianity, insofar as it is expressed in the actions of some people who call themselves Christian.

 

But shouldn't God know exactly what type of evidence and reasoning is required by each person in order to find an argument reasonably convincing? Of course he should. --But why, when I look at all the arguments I have ever come across, is nothing convincing?

 

Either God doesn't want to convince me, is planning on convincing me later, or there must be some point at which God decides that he's tried hard enough to convince someone and they had better figure it out with the proof they have. But what does that proof consist of? I know what proof means; it's a way of saying that that one statement logically follows from another statement, or that evidence can be obtained to show that a proposition is true or false. Some ways we use proof:

 

I can demonstrate how to obtain 3 by defining the numbers 3, 2, and one, adding 2 and 1, and then also show that 2 and 1 can be gotten from 3 by subtraction;

 

I can show that, if all men are mortal and Socrates is a man, then Socrates must be mortal;

 

If someone wonders whether it is raining outside I can open the window and let them look;

 

and other similar cases. --But have I actually been given anything resembling the meaning of proof? No, so it can't be said that God has given me proof of any sort (giving me proof that he knows I wouldn't recognize is not to give proof at all). I am curious what he expects of us, then - to differentiate between essentially identical statements, i.e., between Zeus and God? God and the absence of God? I have equivalent proof of each of these. But that would seem to make salvation more a matter of luck or God's arbitrary choice than anything else. If that's the case, then why are we expected to know what to believe, that is, to take advantage of the gift? Is someone who doesn't believe any old random thing anyone might say to them completely barred from being with God because of their want of proof, any proof?

 

When can it be said that "I damned myself" instead of "God damned me"? Only when we are given a plausible choice.

 

Where is that choice?

[LukeDavis93]

well do you really want to risk going to hell I know I don't. and besides If God doesn't exist then how else could we have gotten here?

[Ray Jones]

By train?

[LukeDavis93]

By train?

smart mouth

[ET Warrior]

well do you really want to risk going to hell I know I don't. and besides If God doesn't exist then how else could we have gotten here?

But you are risking going to hell. There are thousands of different religious beliefs that you don't adhere to that all condemn you to hell for not believing them. You're hedging your bets on your extremely small odds of choosing the right one with no more to go on than the choice (I'm guessing your parents) made for you.

 

As far as us being here, spend some time studying evolutionary biology, and then we can discuss that.

[TK-8252]

and besides If God doesn't exist then how else could we have gotten here?

 

So if god created us, then who created god?

 

[PoiuyWired]

A Daddy God?

 

Seriously, I think there is such an idea in the ancient kabalistic views... but off my mind I forgot how it goes.

[Achilles]

pshaw...everyone knows that something can come from nothing so long as religion is involved. Same thing goes for anything "infinite".

[RobQel-Droma]

@Achiles: Well, I've heard atheists claim that matter is infinite, and so is the foundation for the universe - why can't God be infinite? We don't really know anything about what God "is"?

 

Anyways.... Unfortunately the link is no longer there, so I can't watch the video. From what it sounds like, though, this is not what Jesus intended.

 

I am far more scared of the Christan extremists in America than I am of Muslim extremists in the middle east.

 

Yes, Muslim extremists that strap bombs to themselves and blow hundreds of civilians up are nothing compared to Christians. I mean, look at all the terrible acts Christians are comitting right now....

 

If we're expected to acknowledge this gift, then I suppose we should be notified that it exists. Ignorance does not equal denial.

 

Well, that's up to God. If God is merciful, then he will understand. I don't know - I'm not exactly in on what God has planned.

 

Suppose this gift analogy is thought of another way: Someone places a gift on your doorstep which contains a message on how to truly find God. This gift is invisible, intangible, doesn't smell, can't be heard or tasted.

 

I'm not quite sure how the analogy equates here.... certainly a book containing God's word to us is a little more than invisible or intangible.

 

Its existence does not follow from any logic known to us, and what people have told us about the gift is either contradictory, confused or just plain nonsensical.

 

Here is where I contradict - why does the idea of a loving God who created us not follow any logic known to us?

 

As for the second part, well, that's a sad thing when it happens. That doesn't mean the message is flawed, just the messenger.

 

After placing this gift, our generous benefactor finds he has informed us about God, and therefore we should be judged accordingly...

 

Again... I really don't know. I wouldn't consider this satisfactory. I think that, in the Bible, it's pretty clear that spreading the Gospel is not some drive-by hit and run thing.

 

I agree, we should be responsible for our actions. But I don't think we should be held to account for acts of God.

 

Acts of God?

 

Why would I want to be with God? Perhaps a better question is: who would not, if they only knew?

 

Apparently a lot of people don't. They know, but they still live in sin.

 

There are many who don't know. Can it be said of them that they've made a choice when they do not see any other option?

 

I'm repeating myself - I don't know how God judges these people. I believe that He is a merciful and loving God.

 

But how does God react to this? Does it mean he actually intended that these select, ignorant people to be eternally separated from him without a reasonable ability to avoid it? If so, then it would seem that Jesus didn't die for all people, but only some people. Why?

 

Well, He didn't, I believe. That's why I always wonder about those people - you're not the only one to think about said ignorant people.

 

Now I'm sure you have a handy answer that consists of "Well, the gift is given and people are aware of it and its implications."

 

Some do, some don't, I'd say.

 

--But I can tell you that I am aware of neither, although I have certainly had a fairly positive exposure to Christianity, insofar as it is expressed in the actions of some people who call themselves Christian.

 

Well, I know a lot of people say this, but you have to be looking for God. God is very eager to have a relationship with you, but it won't happen if you aren't seeking him.

 

But shouldn't God know exactly what type of evidence and reasoning is required by each person in order to find an argument reasonably convincing? Of course he should. --But why, when I look at all the arguments I have ever come across, is nothing convincing?

 

Why is it not convincing? I think that God made all of us with the capacity to understand the evidence and choose to follow God. We may have to be told about it first, but I think that most go through a point where they have that informed decision.

 

Either God doesn't want to convince me, is planning on convincing me later, or there must be some point at which God decides that he's tried hard enough to convince someone and they had better figure it out with the proof they have.

 

But God isn't someone to say "I've tried hard enough."

 

But what does that proof consist of? I know what proof means; it's a way of saying that that one statement logically follows from another statement, or that evidence can be obtained to show that a proposition is true or false. Some ways we use proof:

 

~snip~

 

--But have I actually been given anything resembling the meaning of proof? No, so it can't be said that God has given me proof of any sort (giving me proof that he knows I wouldn't recognize is not to give proof at all). I am curious what he expects of us, then - to differentiate between essentially identical statements, i.e., between Zeus and God?

 

Now we're getting a bit deep, and I don't want to get long-winded, there is much more evidence for the Christian God than there is Zeus. Zeus was almost a god of the times anyways, he was a god borrowed by the Romans. Does anyone even believe in Zeus anymore?

 

God and the absence of God? I have equivalent proof of each of these.

 

Why do you say they are equivalent? Just wondering.

 

But that would seem to make salvation more a matter of luck or God's arbitrary choice than anything else. If that's the case, then why are we expected to know what to believe, that is, to take advantage of the gift? Is someone who doesn't believe any old random thing anyone might say to them completely barred from being with God because of their want of proof, any proof?

 

God isn't this kind of person - I don't believe in predestination or anything like that. Also, I think that finding God is personal journey, not some kind of thing where you sit around and say "Ok God - show yourself!" And when He doesn't appear, say "Well, you had your chance to show me...." and walk away.

 

When can it be said that "I damned myself" instead of "God damned me"? Only when we are given a plausible choice.

 

Where is that choice?

 

I think everyone has this choice, if they have a desire to live a different life and find God. If they don't, well.... what can you do about it? If they don't want to find a God, or live a different life, then "it's their life." And for those who want to find God, but *can't*.... Hmmm. God is merciful, so, I hope that they will be shown mercy. I think they will.

[Achilles]

@Achiles: Well, I've heard atheists claim that matter is infinite, and so is the foundation for the universe

When it comes to matters of science, I tend to be more interested in the statements made by scientists rather than those made by atheists. FWIW, I've never heard anyone claim that matter is infinite (I have heard some arguments for energy being infinite though).

 

why can't God be infinite?

Don't look at me. I don't have a problem with the claim. I only get upset when people want to have it so that something can apply for one argument but then automatically discount those conditions for another (and then not even have the decency to tell us why).

 

If god gets to be infinite, then so do the conditions that led up the big bang. If the conditions leading up the big bang have to be laid out in explicit detail in order for us to accept that it actually happened (something we have evidence for), then the conditions leading up to the birth of god must be laid out with comparable attention to detail (ignoring that we have no way to measure god, and therefore no evidence for his/her/its existence).

 

We don't really know anything about what God "is"?

Nope, we sure don't. Unfortunately, that does not stop many people from making unsupportable claims about who he is, what he wants from us, his roll in our lives, his feelings toward us as a species, his feelings toward us as individuals, etc, etc, etc.

[RobQel-Droma]

Well basically, it's not so much because the Atheist wants to be with god, but more questioning the "fact" that someone who did nothing but good in his entire life would go to hell just because he's not believing,

 

I can't think of anyone who has never sinned before. Except Jesus.

 

while someone who did really bad things for all of his life could go to heaven just because he starts believing on his 70th birthday and "truly regrets" what he has done. See it as as try to point out some unjust illogicality, as it appears to some Atheist, and not because Atheists want to go to heaven.

 

You're generalizing it into "good things" and "bad things", and you can't look at it that way. First of all, there aren't people who do "good things all their life". In fact, you could really say that there are only people who do "bad things all their life". Its the basis of Christianity. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, the Book says.

 

Not even Christians think of themselves as any "better" than an unbeliever. (well, they shouldn't....) Its just that we believe that we are saved, and the other person isn't. (which then means we should try and correct that ) Jesus specifically taught that Christians were supposed to serve people, and humble themselves. I know that this gets forgotten sometimes, even by me.

 

When it comes to matters of science, I tend to be more interested in the statements made by scientists rather than those made by atheists. FWIW, I've never heard anyone claim that matter is infinite (I have heard some arguments for energy being infinite though).

 

I've heard people make the claim about matter before; although, if you want to talk about energy, that's been said on these very forums before. And kudos for sticking with science rather than just other atheist's opinions (not that I think you would do that, knowing you, but I know some who do).

 

Don't look at me. I don't have a problem with the claim. I only get upset when people want to have it so that something can apply for one argument but then automatically discount those conditions for another (and then not even have the decency to tell us why).

 

I know what you mean. I was just finding out where you were coming from.

 

If god gets to be infinite, then so do the conditions that led up the big bang. If the conditions leading up the big bang have to be laid out in explicit detail in order for us to accept that it actually happened (something we have evidence for), then the conditions leading up to the birth of god must be laid out with comparable attention to detail (ignoring that we have no way to measure god, and therefore no evidence for his/her/its existence).

 

True.

 

Nope, we sure don't. Unfortunately, that does not stop many people from making unsupportable claims about who he is, what he wants from us, his roll in our lives, his feelings toward us as a species, his feelings toward us as individuals, etc, etc, etc.

 

Yes, unfortunately, it doesn't... Merely making claims based on feelings or opinions don't really hold weight, no matter how wrong/right they are. I can't pretend that I'm not guilty of doing that.

 

I do have my beliefs on what God wants from us, and his role in our lives is, however - but I would hope that they come directly from the Bible than just my opinion. If you don't believe in the Bible, well, that's another discussion, of course - but I myself would hope that I would stick to what God's Word says most of all. After all, it is supposed to be the basis of my religion, so trying to infer things that aren't in the text.... well, it doesn't exactly help Christianity.

[Achilles]

Considering the disagreements that we have had in the past, I am truly pleased to see that there is much that we can agree on. Thanks for your post! Take care