(Original post by Hylean)
Really? So people who might have an agenda against an institution which led to their abuse are more rational...
Now I'm beginning to doubt your objectivity.
Proof for any of these baseless assertions?
I don't know, you're not really showing this side right now, to be honest. It's clearly wishful thinking that there is no such thing as an "atheist agenda" to be indoctrinated into.
Or, shock horror, they were "indoctrinated" at a young age and carried on like most people.
Really? I took both definitions from the Definitional Thread
, so clearly there's a general concensus on the definition I gave. Interestingly, your definition of atheism exists nowhere
except in your head.
Clearly you find it unpalatable, because you can't admit a simple truth.
Except, that's not what atheism is about. Atheism is about a belief that there is no deity or a disbelief in any deity. That's a fact. Thus, it can be very easy to indoctrinate someone into that idea. It's also easy to indoctrinate people into an anti-religion viewpoint as well, which often goes hand-in-hand with atheism (Hitchens would be a good example).
Your argument is that atheism somehow defines itself by scepticism (hint, it doesn't) and thinking for yourself (hint, it doesn't). You have yet to prove this assertion, so I can disregard it like you do any god out there.
This entire post makes no sense. And does little to prove, at all, your idea that atheists can't indoctrinate their children the same way religious parents "can".
Until you can provide a decent argument to show that religious upbringing in the West is actually indoctrination on a level different to teaching social and cultural values, etc. and that somehow atheists are above these processes (hint, they're not), it's just not worth it debating with you. You're clearly biased and not approaching the debate objectively.