Did you see how this topic came up in the first place? An atheist did in fact insinuate that
@2PhiloVoid was only Christian because of growing up in a Christian country, and that chances were, if he had grown up elsewhere, he would be a different religion.
Which is statistically VERY LIKELY true.
As said plenty of times: tell me the religion of your parents and >99% of the time, I'll succesfully guess your religion.
If Dogma wished to distance himself from those initial comments, he should have done so explicitly.
Nope. I see no reason to.
Because I'm very likely correct.
It could be that he's one of those exceptions. That he has muslim parents and became a christian for some reason. This is very unlikely, but it could be.
He could be one of those <1% of people. Sure.
And then
still I would argue that if he were born in some tribal region in Pakistan, he'ld surely be a muslim.
And you know it's true.
You just argue this point because you don't like it. Because it shows that religious beliefs aren't held because there are rational reasons to hold them. Religious beliefs are held because they are
taught from a very young age onwards.
Religious beliefs of an individual, as a general rule, are determined by the parents.
He did not, and so here we are, extrapolating from all the other comments he's made over the years. Remarks don't exist in a void.
And in the process, you are adding to it and thereby misrepresenting what my position actually is.
For an example in the opposite direction, take a look at this
theory that people become atheists because of bad father relationships. I have no idea if it actually plays out like that in the general public, but even if it does, it would be completely inappropriate for a theist to ask an atheist about their relationship with their father and then just point to the statistics over and over again.
lol..................................
That the vast majority people grow up believing the religion that they were taught from a young age onwards
is not a theory. It's a statistical FACT.
Sorry, but this is offensive and unacceptable in both directions. We should treat each other like people, not statistics.
Yet statistics are what they are.
If statistics show that >99% of people end up believing the religion that they were taught since they were infants, why then is it apparantly "offensive" to state that as a general rule, people end up believing the religion they were taught since they were infants????
I get that you don't like that reality for perhaps reasons mentioned above. I get that you don't like the facts. But they are still the facts.........
And we should be particularly careful assuming that the color of someone's skin tells us what they believe, because then we've just moved straight into racial stereotyping.
I never talked about skin color.
I talked about culture and how the religious beliefs of parents are taught to children, how then the vast majority of the time stick to those beliefs for the rest of their lives.
I did talk about ethnicity, that is correct, in context of metropolitan cities and guessing people's religion based on geographic location. And I stand by it.
If I walk around in Antwerp and I come accross someone religious of north-african ethnicity, like Moroccon... I'ld guess that person is a muslim. And most of the time, I'ld surely be correct.
If I'ld come accross a "white" religious person, I'ld guess that person is a christian. And most of the time, I'ld surely be correct also.
You can call it stereotyping if you want to. Perhaps you'ld be correct. But probabilities are what they are.
If you come accross a person named Achmed, Abdullah or Mohammed... what do you think is most likely his religion? Christian, muslim, hindu or scientologist?
Be honest now...................................
