List of common fallacies of Atheists

[tonyrey]

…Part 1 …

Jesus was a historical person whose moral teaching is the noblest that the human race has ever known,
I don’t necessarily disagree with that statement.

Yet you believe he and/or his followers were liars or lunatics…

obviously the comparison is of the supernatural elements of the Jesus story. The supernatural elements of the Horus myth were obviously plugged into the Jesus story.

Did Horus cure and teach people, die by crucifixion, rise from the dead, appear to his followers, inspire them and subsequent generations of men and women down to the present time (like St Maria Goretti and Archbishop Romero) to face persecution, torture and martyrdom for their faith? **Who **do you think “plugged in” the elements of the Horus myth into the Gospel accounts and what was their motive?

Nevertheless their beliefs reflect the fundamental truths of Creation, the existence of divinity and the soul, the distinction between good and evil, cosmic justice, life after death and the need for prayer, salvation and atonement.
that’s an absurd conclusion

Did the Egyptians or did they not believe in Creation, the existence of divinity and the soul, the distinction between good and evil, cosmic justice, life after death and the need for prayer, salvation and atonement?

Do you believe the physical universe is valueless and purposeless or not?
irrelevant question

Irrelevant to theism and atheism! Why are you reluctant to answer a simple question?

Was it created by God or not? Do we exist for any particular reason or not? you don’t have a grasp of basic logic.

Please explain why. Otherwise your assertion is a vacuous evasion and merely weakens your argument…

1. Are the decisions you make in life are based on science on the assumption that human beings are persons
2. What does science tell us about good and evil, justice, love, freedom, friendship, happiness?
I’ve already given you a well rounded response to this line of questioning.

You have not answered #1.
As for 2# do you really believe “a product of our biological formation (and obviously our environment), which likely evolved through a random process of selection” is “a well rounded response” to the question of the origin of good and evil, justice, love, freedom, friendship, happiness?

Religion tells us that we are creative persons with a conscience, free will and capacity for love whose lives are infinitely valuable because we are made in the image of our Creator.
you need a primitive book to tell that?

You call the New Testament a primitive book and yet it contains the noblest moral teaching the human race has ever known!

It is ironic that the great thinkers you quote both believed in God! Paine was deeply influenced by the humanitarian views of his father who was a Quaker. Kant was a Christian who believed in “the universal kingdom of ends”.
Thomas Paine was a deist, who authored a book called the Age of Reason (which helped deism become popular in the colonies). Immanuel Kant was agnostic.

Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) advocated a vision of Christian deism, most notably in his work"Die Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft" (1793;“Religion within the limits of reason alone”). You will find detailed information online:
books.google.co.uk/books?id=YxM02crboJIC&pg=PA122&lpg=PA122&dq=kant+creator+unity+of+creation&source=bl&ots=2H3rKqrSLw&sig=PDUB2MxoHHCRuMdTXRwtrHsvfnM&hl=en&ei=ZL-sSruDKJqsjAfZ6_DzBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10#v=onepage&q=kant%20creator%20unity%20of%20creation&f=false
Neither of them were atheists or agnostics.

(trying to paint Thomas Paine as a Quaker is the most absurd claim I’ve heard so far).

You need to read more carefully. I stated: “Paine was deeply influenced by the humanitarian views of his father who was a Quaker”.

I ask, can you prove that Jesus is the source of freedom, equal rights, and love? I say again that’s an absurd claim.

Again you need to read more carefully. I did not state that Jesus is the source of freedom, equal rights, and love:
“The be****lief in freedom, justice, equal rights and love stem from Jesus who taught that we are all children of the Father and we shall receive exactly what we deserve”.

So all your emotions are thrust on you and you are a helpless slave, are you? Do you tell that to the persons you love?
Did you digest a single word I said previously about the formation of our subconscious?

If our emotions are produced by our subconscious how do we control them?

I say Christianity is a slave religion. Imagine all the poor and underprivileged in first century Roman society. These people lived hopeless lives, yet this guy named Paul comes along and tells them about a kingdom designed for the meek. It’s no wonder the ignorant, poor, and enslaved came running. Suddenly a religious system that puts them on top, without any effort (just sort of behave yourself and believe).

Unfortunately for your hypothesis rich and poor alike from all classes of society became Christians because they recognised the truth and nobility of the life and teaching of Jesus. A religion that is worldwide and has lasted for two thousand years would hardly be based on a “plugged in myth”. That would be the greatest miracle of the lot!

 

[tonyrey]

…Part 2…

The fundamental truths of religion remain unchanged and forever beyond the scope of science - that we are persons with the power of reason in a rational universe - with free will and a right to life and happiness.

Rational thought has always been the enemy of religion.

On the contrary the Church founded the educational institutions and many Christians, like Pasteur and Mendel, have been eminent scientists.

Are the fundamental principles of science based on belief in a rational universe and the power of reason?
Is an intelligible response too much to ask for?

Please answer the question.

Our biological formation (and obviously our environment), which likely evolved through a random process of selection?Please substantiate your assertions statistically. Otherwise they are worthless…
What I’ve said had nothing to do with statistics (statistics is not a relevant standard of proof in the case I articulated).

Why is statistics not a relevant standard of proof?

What I’ve said is models have been developed that show randomness can produce intelligence.

Please provide a specific reference.

My overall case is built upon the totality of the evidence.

You have not even produced a brief outline of the so-called “totality of the evidence”.

Where probability is valid is when we look at the Horus story, which is interestingly virtually exactly the same as the supernatural elements of the Jesus story (and it came centuries earlier). I believe Jesus perhaps did exist, had a ministry, and taught some worthwhile virtues. However, it’s clear that along the way the story of Horus was plugged into the Jesus narrative.

Who exactly do you think “plugged in” the elements of the Horus myth into the Gospel accounts and what was their motive?

What’s the probability that Jesus would replicate the life of an earlier pagan character in such detail, versus the probability that the earlier story was plugged into the later story? The answer is obvious!

Please list all the details by which the life of Jesus replicates the life of Horus…

Look I understand you’ll rationalize this stuff away in your mind (with intellectual gymnastics that would make an Olympic athlete envious), but that’s your problem not mine.

It is not intellectual gymnastics but a colossal, philosophical conjuring trick to derive rational persons from irrational particles! This is the supreme absurdity…

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Constant repetition does not alter the facts… Have you told your family and friends they are splendid biological machines?!
Why not try to explain to us the will to survive? That would be far more interesting…

I have lost count of how many times i have explained that to you.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

“What I’ve said is models have been developed that show randomness can produce intelligence.”

Please provide a specific reference.

discovermagazine.com/2008/jan/robots-evolve-and-learn-how-to-lie

 

[shoewindow3000]

NO relation between Horus and Christ:

You should have researched it, Mr. atheist! Now I will make you look silly…

1. Horus was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave/manger with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men.

Let’s take this one apart and deal with each separate issue:

Horus’ mother was not a virgin. She was married to Osiris, and there is no reason to suppose she was abstinent after marriage. Horus was, per the story, miraculously conceived. Seth had killed and dismembered Osiris, then Isis put her husband’s dead body back together and had intercourse with it. In some versions, she used a hand-made phallus since she wasn’t able to find that part of her husband. So while it was a miraculous conception, it was not a virgin birth.

Horus was given three different birthdates in mythology, one of which does correspond to December 25th. But since Jesus wasn’t, per the evidence, born on 12/25, this isn’t a parallel.

“Meri” (technically “Mr-ee”) is the egyptian word for “beloved” and was apparently applied to Isis prior to Jesus’ time, as a title, not as part of her name. But since there were probably thousands of women between Horus’ time and Jesus’ with a name or title that was a variation on “Mary”, there’s no real reason to suppose that Jesus’ mother was named after Isis in particular. Even if, hypothetically, the Gospel authors themselves fabricated Jesus’ mother and decided to name her “Mary”, it’s far more likely that they named her after other women from around their time named “Mary” than it is that they named her after “Isis-Meri”

Horus was born in a swamp, not a cave/manger. Acharya’s footnotes for this point only make the claim that Jesus was born in a cave, and say nothing about Horus being born in one.

Horus’ birth was not announced by a star in the east

There were no “three wise men” at Horus’ birth, or at Jesus’ for that matter (the Bible never gives the number of wise men, and they showed up at Jesus’ home, not at the manger, probably when Jesus was a year or two old).

Acharya’s source for the last two claims appears to be Massey, who says "the Star in the East that arose to announce the birth of the babe (Jesus) was Orion, which is therefore called the star of Horus. That was once the star of the three kings; for the ‘three kings’ is still a name of three stars in Orion’s belt . . . " Massey’s apparently getting mixed up, and then the critics are misinterpreting it. Orion is not a star, but a constellation, of which there are three stars in a row making up the belt of Orion. However, there is no evidence that these three stars were called the “Three Kings” prior to Jesus’ time, nor even prior to the 19th century, for that matter.

And even if there is a specific star called ‘the star of Horus’, there’s no legend stating that it announced Horus’ birth (as the critics are claiming) or that the three stars in Orion’s belt attended Horus’ birth in any way.

1. His earthly father was named “Seb” (“Joseph”).

First of all, there is no parallel between the Egyptian name “Seb” and the Hebrew name “Joseph”, other than the fact that they’re common names. Also, Seb was Osiris’ father, not Horus’.

1. He was of royal descent.

This one’s true! But it’s not really a comparison to Jesus. When followers speak of Jesus being of ‘royal descent’, they usually mean His being a descendent of King David, an earthly king. Horus was, according to the myth, descended from heavenly royalty (as Jesus was), being the son of the main god.

1. At age 12, he was a child teacher in the Temple, and at 30, he was baptized, having disappeared for 18 years.

He never taught in any temple and was never baptized. Also, Jesus didn’t ‘disappear’ in the years between His teaching in the temple and baptism. He worked humbly as a carpenter.

1. Horus was baptized in the river Eridanus or Iarutana (Jordan) by “Anup the Baptizer” (“John the Baptist”), who was decapitated.

Again, Horus was never baptized. There is no “Anup the Baptizer” in the story.

1. He had 12 disciples, two of whom were his “witnesses” and were named “Anup” and “Aan” (the two “Johns”).

Horus had four disciples (called ‘Heru-Shemsu’). There’s another reference to sixteen followers, and a group of followers called ‘mesnui’ (blacksmiths) who join Horus in battle, but are never numbered. But there’s no reference to twelve followers or any of them being named “Anup” or “Aan”.

1. He performed miracles, exorcised demons and raised El-Azarus (“El-Osiris”), from the dead.

He did perform miracles, but he never exorcised demons or raised his father from the dead. Also, Osiris is never referred to as ‘El-Azarus’ or ‘El-Osiris’ (clearly an attempt to make his name more closely resemble the Bible’s “Lazarus”).

1. Horus walked on water.

No, he did not.

1. His personal epithet was “Iusa,” the “ever-becoming son” of “Ptah,” the “Father.” He was thus called “Holy Child.”

Horus was never referred to as “Iusa” (nor was anyone in Egyptian history - the word does not exist) or “Holy Child”.

1. He delivered a “Sermon on the Mount” and his followers recounted the “Sayings of Iusa.”

Horus never delivered such a sermon, and, as pointed out above, he was never referred to as “Iusa”.

1. Horus was transfigured on the Mount.

No, he was not.

1. He was crucified between two thieves, buried for three days in a tomb, and resurrected.

Horus was never crucified. There’s an unofficial story in which he dies and is cast in pieces into the water, then later fished out by a crocodile at Isis’ request. This unofficial story is the only one in which he dies at all.

1. He was also the “Way, the Truth, the Light,” “Messiah,” “God’s Anointed Son,” the “Son of Man,” the “Good Shepherd,” the “Lamb of God,” the “Word made flesh,” the “Word of Truth,” etc.

The only titles Horus is given are “Great God”, “Chief of the Powers”, “Master of Heaven”, and “Avenger of His Father”. None of the above titles are in any Egyptian mythology.

1. He was “the Fisher” and was associated with the Fish (“Ichthys”), Lamb and Lion.

He was never referred to as “the fisher”, and there are no lamb or lion in any of the stories. Acharya S.'s footnotes on this claim only show an association with fish (which is that Horus WAS a fish, unlike Jesus), with no evidence of his being called ‘the fisher’ or having any association with a lamb or lion.

1. He came to fulfill the Law.

There was no “law” he was supposed to fulfill.

1. Horus was called “the KRST,” or “Anointed One.”

He was never referred to by either of these titles. “Krst”, in Egyptian, means “burial”, by the way. It wasn’t a title.

1. Like Jesus, “Horus was supposed to reign one thousand years.”

No mention of this in Egyptian mythology.

 

[tonyrey]

What I’ve said is models have been developed that show randomness can produce intelligence.
discovermagazine.com/2008/jan…arn-how-to-lie

The robots have been programmed by **intelligent **beings. How can it possibly be evidence that randomness can produce intelligence?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

The robots have been programmed by **intelligent **beings. How can it possibly be evidence that randomness can produce intelligence?

U know i actually though when i posted that, could some be so silly to say… “robots have been programmed by **intelligent **beings.”

Must i really explain this?

"The robots were initially programmed both to light up** randomly and to move randomly **when they sensed light.

To create the next generation of robots, Floreano recombined the genes of those that proved fittest—those that had managed to get the biggest charge out of the food source.

The resulting code (with a little mutation added in the form of a random change) was downloaded into the robots to make what were, in essence, offspring."

What we are seeing here is intelligence developing without guidance. The only human interaction is to insert the code into the offspring, in nature that is called HAVING CHILDREN

So this shows with certain “genes” in place intelligence can develop by its own accord. Now the development of those genes is a totally unrelated question. We are answering the development of intelligence.

You always seem to have great trouble understanding and separating different theories. I have explained to you countless times, theories explain a specific set of facts. The evolution of intelligence is a question for evolution, not Abiogenesis. In short that fact that we have pre-programmed genes does not have any bearing on the evolution of the intelligence. If you want to know how the genes developed that is a separate question.

 

[josie_L]

U know i actually though when i posted that, could some be so silly to say… “robots have been programmed by **intelligent **beings.”

Must i really explain this?

"The robots were initially programmed both to light up** randomly and to move randomly **when they sensed light.

To create the next generation of robots, Floreano recombined the genes of those that proved fittest—those that had managed to get the biggest charge out of the food source.

The resulting code (with a little mutation added in the form of a random change) was downloaded into the robots to make what were, in essence, offspring."

What we are seeing here is intelligence developing without guidance. The only human interaction is to insert the code into the offspring, in nature that is called HAVING CHILDREN

So this shows with certain “genes” in place intelligence can develop by its own accord. Now the development of those genes is a totally unrelated question. We are answering the development of intelligence.

You always seem to have great trouble understanding and separating different theories. I have explained to you countless times, theories explain a specific set of facts. The evolution of intelligence is a question for evolution, not Abiogenesis. In short that fact that we have pre-programmed genes does not have any bearing on the evolution of the intelligence. If you want to know how the genes developed that is a separate question.

Who made the robots?

 

[Fran65]

Josie’s point is an excellent and subtle one that is not likely to be understood or accepted by some.

The example of the robots’ ability to develop intelligent behaviour does not demonstrate intelligence emerging from randomness. It demonstrates the need for a creator.

The robots were built by the researchers. The original very simple programming was written and installed by the programmers and the programmers selected which programmes were successful enough to be copied. I know that in relation to evolution one could regard this process as similar to natural selection…however it is not natural selection. The selection is carried out by an intelligence greater than the robots.

Interesting.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

double

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Josie’s point is an excellent and subtle one that is not likely to be understood or accepted by some.

The example of the robots’ ability to develop intelligent behavior does not demonstrate intelligence emerging from randomness. It demonstrates the need for a creator.

The robots were built by the researchers. The original very simple programming was written and installed by the programmers and the programmers selected which programmes were successful enough to be copied. I know that in relation to evolution one could regard this process as similar to natural selection…however it is not natural selection. The selection is carried out by an intelligence greater than the robots.

Interesting.

No, the section was carried out on a survival basis, much like in nature. All the programmers did in this case was provide a means for descent with modification, because the robots in question DON’T REPRODUCE. Animals do.

Also Josie’s point is utterly irrelevant, again this comes down to not understanding the basis of the experiment. The experiment is dealing with the evolution of intelligence, to ask questions like “who built the robots” or “who programmed the robots” shows a complete lack of understanding of how experiments are carried and what question they seeks to answer. If a experiment is created to show why A is A, B C D E F and G has nothing to do with the experiment. So for you to all say well what about B C D E F and G? Well what about them, all we seek to show here is A is A.

I hate to say it but i really do see a lot of people on this board that don’t even have the most basic scientific knowledge. The mere point that people are raising objections as above underlines this. I can defiantly see why religiosity drops off amongst those educated in the sciences.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I can defiantly see why religiosity drops off amongst those educated in the sciences.

Defiantly as in “defiance” is the correct word, since there are many people like Kenneth R Miller who know science just as well as the best of them. He believes in God.

 

[josie_L]

"The robots were initially programmed both to light up** randomly and to move randomly **when they sensed light.

Hi Bryan,

I don’t question the evolution of intelligence per se, I question the origins of intelligence in that how does non-matter become suddenly conscious? I believe like the robots we were initially programmed and thus from that point on our intelligence evolved.

God bless.

 

[PJM]

******=reggieM;5653687]Personally, I do not find him to be trustworthy.
From the interview you posted …

**What do you make of the miracles in the Bible – most importantly, the Resurrection? Do you think that happened in the literal sense? **
​

I don’t think theology is being responsible if it ever takes anything with completely literal understanding. What we have in the New Testament is a story that’s trying to awaken us to trust that our lives make sense, that in the end, everything works out for the best. In a pre-scientific age, this is done in a way in which unlettered and scientifically illiterate people can be challenged by this Resurrection. But if you ask me whether a scientific experiment could verify the Resurrection, I would say such an event is entirely too important to be subjected to a method which is devoid of all religious meaning.

***So friend you were there:shrug:

Then how about listening to someone who was:thumbsup:***

**1 Cor. 15: 3 "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

Love and prayers,

Your pal, Saint Paul ​

 

[yankee_doodle]

Josie’s point is an excellent and subtle one that is not likely to be understood or accepted by some.

The example of the robots’ ability to develop intelligent behaviour does not demonstrate intelligence emerging from randomness. It demonstrates the need for a creator.

robots?

As a means of criticism, certain skeptics have pointed to a challenge of intelligent design derived from the study of artificial intelligence. The criticism is a counter to intelligent design claims about what makes a design intelligent, specifically that “no preprogrammed device can be truly intelligent, that intelligence is irreducible to natural processes”.[203] This claim is similar in type to an assumption of Cartesian dualism that posits a strict separation between “mind” and the material Universe. However, in studies of artificial intelligence, while there is an implicit assumption that supposed “intelligence” or creativity of a computer program is determined by the capabilities given to it by the computer programmer, artificial intelligence need not be bound to an inflexible system of rules. Rather, if a computer program can access randomness as a function, this effectively allows for a flexible, creative, and adaptive intelligence. Evolutionary algorithms, a subfield of machine learning (itself a subfield of artificial intelligence), have been used to mathematically demonstrate that randomness and selection can be used to “evolve” complex, highly adapted structures that are not explicitly designed by a programmer. Evolutionary algorithms use the Darwinian metaphor of random mutation, selection and the survival of the fittest to solve diverse mathematical and scientific problems that are usually not solvable using conventional methods. Intelligence derived from randomness is essentially indistinguishable from the “innate” intelligence associated with biological organisms, and poses a challenge to the intelligent design conception that intelligence itself necessarily requires a designer. Cognitive science continues to investigate the nature of intelligence along these lines of inquiry. The intelligent design community, for the most part, relies on the assumption that intelligence is readily apparent as a fundamental and basic property of complex systems.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

See also:

csicop.org/si/show/darwin_in_mind_intelligent_design_meets_artificial_intelligence/

The crux of the intelligent design argument is that intelligent life, namely human beings, are “irreducibly complex,” which basically amounts to incredulity (our DNA is so complex that we can’t figure out how to simulate our evolution, therefore god).

It turns out, however, that all that is needed to add the required flexibility to a machine is to let it make use of randomness. A random function, because it is patternless, can be used to break out of any pre-defined framework. It serves as a novelty-generator. Plus we can prove a “completeness theorem” showing all functions can be expressed as a combination of rules and randomness. So if all we claim is that humans are flexible in a way not captured by rules, randomness alone does the trick. There is no other option (Edis 1998b).

So indeed intelligence can evolve through randomness (it’s been proven), and in fact there’s no other way we know of through which, we could have evolved into intelligent beings.

Abiogenesis is another matter, but I suspect we’ll have a working model soon enough (here’s a link to a Wiki article on the subject if anyone is interested).

 

[tonyrey]

To create the next generation of robots, Floreano recombined the genes of those that proved fittest—those that had managed to get the biggest charge out of the food source.
The resulting code (with a little mutation added in the form of a random change) was downloaded into the robots to make what were, in essence, offspring."
What we are seeing here is intelligence developing without guidance.
So this shows with certain “genes” in place intelligence can develop by its own accord. Now the development of those genes is a totally unrelated question. We are answering the development of intelligence.

You accuse others of being silly and then you produce one of the silliest arguments I have ever come across in my life!
You equate getting “the biggest charge out of the food source” with intelligence!!!

 

[Watchman]

funny, I’m not religious and I’m not a criminal, hold a graduate degree (actually two), don’t use drugs, don’t smoke, rarely drink (and when I do it’s a beer or two), exercise five days per week, I don’t have irresponsible sex, I’m a well respected professional in a position of trust, and the list goes on.

Indeed, the most irreligious part of this country (the Northeast) has the lowest divorce rate, its cities have the lowest crime rates (compared to other large cities), some of the highest college graduation rates, the highest per capita income, etc. etc. etc. In fact the most irreligious countries in the world excel in all these statistics as well (Scandinavia). Highest income, lowest crime, low divorce rates, high rankings in happiness surveys, highest education levels, etc.

So real life doesn’t support the inferred premise of your statement.

I’m not sure what you think I’m inferring. You seem to be reading a great deal into what was a personal statement regarding the “ease” of a life of faith. I’ll try to explain my comment in a new way. Would you find it easier to continue to believe and act as you do (with no judgement on my part about that choice), or to dedicate your life to an ongoing and Catholic attempt at holiness. This is not about right or wrong. This is not an accusation that atheists are bad people. This is noting more than a statement about the “ease” of belief.

Would it be easier for you?

 

[yankee_doodle]

I’m not sure what you think I’m inferring. You seem to be reading a great deal into what was a personal statement regarding the “ease” of a life of faith. I’ll try to explain my comment in a new way. Would you find it easier to continue to believe and act as you do (with no judgement on my part about that choice), or to dedicate your life to an ongoing and Catholic attempt at holiness. This is not about right or wrong. This is not an accusation that atheists are bad people. This is noting more than a statement about the “ease” of belief.

Would it be easier for you?

Frankly, yeah it would be easy, since it wouldn’t be much of a transition for me (in terms of personal behavior). Indeed, given the fact I rarely drink (and the few times I do it’s always responsibly), don’t smoke, don’t sleep around or put myself at risk through irresponsible sex, and sustain a highly productive tempo in life would give me far more license to take on a holier than vow attitude compared to most theists I’ve encountered.

However, I don’t take a holier than thou attitude (while most theists, who are by most standards screwed up in terms of their personal behavior, are the most judgmental nit wits I’ve ever come across). So not only do I behave myself better than most Christians, but I also don’t harshly judge lapses in personal behavior by others (obviously within reason). In other words I’m naturally more Christian than Christians, even though I don’t believe in ancient mythological tales of rising dead men.

 

[PJM]

=yankee_doodle;5657094]I think it’s harder to depict atheists as brainwashed, since for most adults atheism or agnosticism is a position we arrive at through our own reasoning. However, I understand there is some pressure in academia (but of course I’m not a college professor, so this hardly applies to me). Moreover, while in college I don’t remember much discussion about religion (either way), beyond in a benign historical context.

Therefore, I’m not sure where this brainwashing comes from? It’s funny that the religious typically try and use all the arguments that really apply to them … on us. For instance I hear the religious constantly talk about schools indoctrinating kids, whereas religion is everywhere openly trying to indoctrinate everyone all the time (and I don’t think schools try to indoctrinate kids against religion, rather they usually just teach their curriculum and that’s it).

Anyway …

*The term “brainwashed” lacks charity, is an inarticulate expression and is deeming. It at best is a poor choice of therms.

No matter the lack of an open mind, Faith is always a gift. Some receive it, some refuse it and some simply deny it.

Love and prayers,*

 

[tonyrey]

In other words I’m naturally more Christian than Christians, even though I don’t believe in ancient mythological tales of rising dead men.

Congratulations if you are more Christian than Christians! (All Christians? Most Christians? Some Christians?) And I’m not being sarcastic.
If you believe in the teaching of Christ and follow it to the best of your ability you cannot go far wrong even though you reject Christ Himself. No one is condemned for a sincere (dis)belief. We may be mistaken but what counts is whether our heart is in the right place. The best way to determine what we really believe is to examine how we behave.
Actions (or failures to act) speak much louder than words…