Indoctrination

You are a Christian/Muslim/Jew/Sikh/Hindu because your parents are Christian/Muslim/Jew/Sikh/Hindu. They taught you Christianity/Islam/Judaism/Sikhism/Hinduism. This is indoctrination. Yet you don't question your beliefs. You think your belief - the one you were taught since birth - is the correct one. You probably haven't even looked at other religions. You just keep your blind faith. Why?????

I know this doesn't apply to everyone but it applies to the vast majority of religious people.

Why's that a bad thing?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Why's that a bad thing?

Posted from TSR Mobile

You are a Christian/Muslim/Jew/Sikh/Hindu because your parents are Christian/Muslim/Jew/Sikh/Hindu. They taught you Christianity/Islam/Judaism/Sikhism/Hinduism. This is indoctrination. Yet you don't question your beliefs. You think your belief - the one you were taught since birth - is the correct one. You probably haven't even looked at other religions. You just keep your blind faith. Why?????

I know this doesn't apply to everyone but it applies to the vast majority of religious people.

This is the fallacy of blind-sheep assumption - assuming that religious people are only religious because they're born into it, have not given the matter of religion a significant amount of thought and follow it robotically.

Religious indoctrination is bad because religion has the potential to ruin and, in some cases, end lives.

Why is that a bad thing?

Posted from TSR Mobile

It's not a bad thing because it doesn't affect you. Death saves people from the tragedies of life.

Is this what you wanted to hear???

What I wanted to hear is that OP is judging Religion and Indoctrination based on his predefined conditions for what is good and what is bad, when in actual fact, nothing is objectively bad.

Posted from TSR Mobile

This is the fallacy of blind-sheep assumption - assuming that religious people are only religious because they're born into it, have not given the matter of religion a significant amount of thought and follow it robotically.

given the matter of religion a significant amount of thought

That it just so happens there is no pattern of "significant amount of thought" to have shown any major shifts favouring conversions instead of birth rates to explain the long-term survival of these religions?

Its not a coincidence that most religious people have religious families who are all of the same religion. Its not a coincidence that a boy wearing a turban has a brother who also wears a turban. Oh, lets not forget the non-coincidental turban-wearing father. This is not an assumption. This is the truth. (Shoot I almost sound like I'm preaching religion now)

This is primarily how religion works - by indoctrination. If it wasn't for this, religion would not be around.

Religion has a pretty robotic fashion. It doesn't teach you to think for yourself. If you come across a controversial issue, for example abortion, you are going to think 'what does my religion say about this? It says life begins at conception, abortion is wrong!!!'
rather than 'what do *I* think about this?'. And people of the same religion will come to the same conclusion, in most cases. However, this is all just a fallacy, huh?

This is the fallacy of blind-sheep assumption - assuming that religious people are only religious because they're born into it, have not given the matter of religion a significant amount of thought and follow it robotically.

Then this must be the making up your own fallacy to dodge a point fallacy.

Do you really think it by chance that the overwhelming majority of the billions of religious adherents just happen to follow the particular faiths of the family they were brought up in? That somehow, by some extraordinary coincidence, they were fortunate enough to have found the truth in being born into the 'right' theistic legacy, out of all the other competing ideologies? That it just so happens there is no pattern of "significant amount of thought" to have shown any major shifts favouring conversions instead of birth rates to explain the long-term survival of these religions?

Typical poor description of religion and thinking. There are as many religions which explain how they conclude certain things are moral or immoral, they have an ethical system based jused as much on ethical theory and philosophical argument as any secular one. That some defer completely to what their sacred book says, or expand just from what it says, does not change the fact others dont.

Also, religion offers solutions or positions for an ethical situation, it is up to the person to choose whether he agress with it or not!

Posted from TSR Mobile

Sound arguments on this thread. I have now seen the error of my ways, thanks to the OP alone!

Thanks OP

Posted from TSR Mobile