Are atheists the most easily indoctrinated people? Why?

[Anadarsia]

It is no mystery to anyone that the current values in "Western" society, both via public education or via media or political discourse are very material/physical oriented, to the point that metaphysical concerns have been entirely erased from the collective psyche.

While the ambiant values don't determine the behaviour of every person of course, it's obvious to me that a portion of the population have fully endorsed the received messages and now defend them in a quasi-militant way. I refer to these specific atheists in this thread, not agnostics or deists or non-denominational people who while not being anyhow religious can still grasp the importance of metaphysical questions or at least are open to discuss them.

As the years have gone by, I see that an archetype is consolidating around this ideology that reduces every life concern, whether individual, collective or political, to pure material terms while displaying a stunning degree of gullibility in terms of the principles they spouse. Although atheists on the one hand predicate a full commitment to 'hard' material science as the sole thing to believe in, an overwhelming majority of them have fully endorsed the contemporary world's basic ideological tenets without question, such as human rights, and the resulting humanitarianism that often times lead to interventionism, patronizing and infantilization of other countries and populations (who are said to not be as 'advanced' as the secular West), defence of mainline narratives that are pushed forward by mainstream media regarding democracy, politicians and the interests they supposedly have at heart, an approach to life that is throughly molded over petty concerns such as money, indulging in hedonistic lifestyles and normalizing of one's own shortcomings (again in perfect sync with the ambiant culture).

Why do I ask this? Because one of the most common critiques I've read coming from atheists is that people who are either religious, or even bother approaching metaphysical questions, is that we are blinded by faith, mentally handicapped or just following whatever we are told. Why then, is the average atheist more conformist or accomodating of current dogma?

I don't believe it is necessary to spell it out, but just in case: I am not saying all people who aren't atheists are free of herd behaviour or buying the mainstream narrative and beliefs, nor am I saying that every single person who is purely material oriented is a completely passive accommodating mind. I am merely however here to ask if you've perceived the same 'general rule' I have, and if so to ask why do you think that is?

I posit that it might be related to the fact people who are interested in expanding their minds and spirits to include questions beyond our immediate worldly concerns, may also develop the capacity to see propaganda, slogans and official tales more in depth and with more attention to detail to the more linear approach atheists have? Would you agree with this assessment?

Let me know if you do so, or if you don't agree as well in your comments here. I would like to read what you have to say.

Thank you.

[The Serbian Empire]

I'd disagree and state that the religious are more easily indoctrinated as there's a large God influencing them into the indoctrination.

[Neanderthaland]

Since the only evidence you give is personal experience, I will dismiss your assertion on the grounds of, "not in mine."

[Nusaresa]

Personal experience makes a very poor argument.

[Godular]

Soooo... I'm gonna file this as an epic example of projection.

[Transoxthraxia]

I'd disagree and state that the religious are more easily indoctrinated as there's a large God influencing them into the indoctrination.

what

[Genivaria]

A consistent application of skepticism naturally leads to a position of atheism soooooo no.
In fact the opposite is true.

Soooo... I'm gonna file this as an epic example of projection.

That's a pretty sound conclusion.

[The Serbian Empire]

I'd disagree and state that the religious are more easily indoctrinated as there's a large God influencing them into the indoctrination.

what

There's a bunch of people believing there's a god. Sure enough one of them will take charge and make a religion with clergy to indoctrinate, right?

[Eol Sha]

My question is where are you meeting and conversing with atheists? Do you know any atheists in real life? I ask because if you're making your observations based off of people you meet on the Internet then you've made a mistake and should rethink your silly general rule.

[Minzerland II]

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

So your argument that Western atheists are easily indoctrinated is that they have absorbed and defend a Western materialist philosophical worldview... just like almost all Western theists, and almost everyone in the West in general?

How does that work exactly?

[Anadarsia]

My question is where are you meeting and conversing with atheists? Do you know any atheists in real life? I ask because if you're making your observations based off of people you meet on the Internet then you've made a mistake and should rethink your silly general rule.

A few dozen atheists, both online (reading their impressions and thoughts) as well as several personal acquaintances with whom I've been close to varying degrees.
I am prepared to admit my sample might not be fully representative, and at no point will I say I have the truth regarding this topic, but in general I feel atheists are more prepared to accept official versions of history and politics, than the religious or deistic people I've met.

[SUNTHREIT]

The average person needs mainstream dogma and conformity in ideals. That's how big societies stay together; it's human nature.
Atheists are so gullible to the prevailing ideologies of the day because they seek to conform to the tenets of the society around them as part of human nature. You can't blame them, they're only human.

Although OP is right that these materialistic worldviews make one more susceptible to indoctrination in widely-held modern ideologies and ideas. They'd have nothing else to believe in, after all.

[Anadarsia]

Since the only evidence you give is personal experience, I will dismiss your assertion on the grounds of, "not in mine."

That's perfectly valid. Thank you for stopping by.

[The New Sea Territory]

I'd disagree and state that the religious are more easily indoctrinated as there's a large God influencing them into the indoctrination.

Most atheists have their own abstractions that dictate their ethics, too. These typically are impersonal, like "the people", "humanity", "freedom", etc.

[The New Sea Territory]

The average person needs mainstream dogma and conformity in ideals. That's how big societies stay together; it's human nature.

Human nature is a dead meme...and one without evidence.

[Neanderthaland]

I don't mean this in an accusatory way, but surely the vast majority of theists are indoctrinated by definition. Insofar as most theists are not converts. They were brought up to hold certain ideals, and by and large do.

[Anadarsia]

So your argument that Western atheists are easily indoctrinated is that they have absorbed and defend a Western materialist philosophical worldview... just like almost all Western theists, and almost everyone in the West in general?

How does that work exactly?

While there are indeed Western religious/non-denominational theists/deists who have also warped their metaphysical understanding to condone the ambiant values of republicanism, capitalism and humanocentrism, I find that it is consistently more common to find some dose of healthier skepticism regarding public narratives among them, than in atheist people.

[Genivaria]

My question is where are you meeting and conversing with atheists? Do you know any atheists in real life? I ask because if you're making your observations based off of people you meet on the Internet then you've made a mistake and should rethink your silly general rule.

A few dozen atheists, both online (reading their impressions and thoughts) as well as several personal acquaintances with whom I've been close to varying degrees.
I am prepared to admit my sample might not be fully representative, and at no point will I say I have the truth regarding this topic, but in general I feel atheists are more prepared to accept official versions of history and politics, than the religious or deistic people I've met.

What does that mean exactly?
Because it looks we you went into conspiracy theorist territory there.

[Ebliania]

My question is where are you meeting and conversing with atheists? Do you know any atheists in real life? I ask because if you're making your observations based off of people you meet on the Internet then you've made a mistake and should rethink your silly general rule.

A few dozen atheists, both online (reading their impressions and thoughts) as well as several personal acquaintances with whom I've been close to varying degrees.
I am prepared to admit my sample might not be fully representative, and at no point will I say I have the truth regarding this topic, but in general I feel atheists are more prepared to accept official versions of history and politics, than the religious or deistic people I've met.

Official?

Clarify what you mean by that statement.

[Mefpan]

Although atheists on the one hand predicate a full commitment to 'hard' material science as the sole thing to believe in, an overwhelming majority of them have fully endorsed the contemporary world's basic ideological tenets without question, such as human rights, and the resulting humanitarianism that often times lead to interventionism, patronizing and infantilization of other countries and populations (who are said to not be as 'advanced' as the secular West), defence of mainline narratives that are pushed forward by mainstream media regarding democracy, politicians and the interests they supposedly have at heart, an approach to life that is throughly molded over petty concerns such as money, indulging in hedonistic lifestyles and normalizing of one's own shortcomings (again in perfect sync with the ambiant culture).

Human rights are not a bad idea.

Some cultures do suck, especially when entire sections of society are thrown out of the proverbial fucking window for being "inferior", "meant to be subservient" or otherwise considered "untouchable". Democracy, if done correctly, is the least horrible form of government (yes, this includes 'absence of government' in the lineup).

And widespread "hedonism" and "decadence" are more likely to be a sign that the system in place is at least working well enough to permit large swathes of society to live rather comfortably.

I'm sorry. Perhaps there's some measure of "indoctrination", but it's clearly working out quite well in terms of providing a comfortable lifestyle where we all can be satisfied to such an extent that we can afford to worry about whether or not the colloquial use of words can hurt someone's feelings.

[Genivaria]

So your argument that Western atheists are easily indoctrinated is that they have absorbed and defend a Western materialist philosophical worldview... just like almost all Western theists, and almost everyone in the West in general?

How does that work exactly?

While there are indeed Western religious/non-denominational theists/deists who have also warped their metaphysical understanding to condone the ambiant values of republicanism, capitalism and humanocentrism, I find that it is consistently more common to find some dose of healthier skepticism regarding public narratives among them, than in atheist people.

Yeah you're going to have to back that claim up with something.
And wait are you saying that these

republicanism, capitalism and humanocentrism

are somehow bad?

[Genivaria]

The average person needs mainstream dogma and conformity in ideals. That's how big societies stay together; it's human nature.

Human nature is a dead meme...and one without evidence.

I'm glad someone agrees.

[Anadarsia]

I'd disagree and state that the religious are more easily indoctrinated as there's a large God influencing them into the indoctrination.

Most atheists have their own abstractions that dictate their ethics, too. These typically are impersonal, like "the people", "humanity", "freedom", etc.

Exactly my thoughts. Thank you for helping me better express it.

These abstractions are the ambiant values of post-Enlightenment civilization, and over my life I see atheist people spouse them with greater zeal than people who know metaphysical concerns are important to complement the pure material/worldly issues.

[Eol Sha]

My question is where are you meeting and conversing with atheists? Do you know any atheists in real life? I ask because if you're making your observations based off of people you meet on the Internet then you've made a mistake and should rethink your silly general rule.

A few dozen atheists, both online (reading their impressions and thoughts) as well as several personal acquaintances with whom I've been close to varying degrees.
I am prepared to admit my sample might not be fully representative, and at no point will I say I have the truth regarding this topic, but in general I feel atheists are more prepared to accept official versions of history and politics, than the religious or deistic people I've met.

I find this...incredibly hard to believe since religious people, or at least the deeply religious, often depend on a small sample of books, poems, myths, legends, etc. to tell them the history of the world, the history of humankind, and the ways in which the world work. It's especially hard to believe since most holy texts, at least for the Abrahamic religions, were written by people decades or even centuries after the described events took place. Meaning that they rely on what is essentially fourth-hand accounts of events described in their texts.

And even with religions outside of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, the myths and legends are almost all stories told by people who didn't personally experience them. So color me skeptical when you say religious people are less dogmatic than atheists.