Are atheists the most easily indoctrinated people? Why?

[East Gondwana]

What are these values and how are they fideistic?

Some kind of equal moral worth inherent in all humans. In essence, the object of faith moves from the Christian God to Christian Ethics. That is the best way to describe the current religion of the West.

Most atheists recognise and accept that values like "human rights" are human inventions, social constructs that are entirely abstract and do not "exist" in the sense that there is some innate value baked into the universe that imbibes human beings with certain attributes. However, constructs, ideals, and values such as "human rights" are a way for people to apply the ideas kindness and compassion is practice. We can (mostly) all recognise that all humans (and many animals) are capable of experiencing suffering, and empathy (which is something that almost all humans are capable of) compels us to alleviare that suffering.

In other words: human morality and ethics is an entirely abstract invention that doesn't exist outside of the human mind, but applying this invention to our societies is mutually beneficial and improves the lived experience of all concerned (well, theoretically, at least).

[Uiiop]

Uhh...did you even read the wikipedia article i gave you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Di ... of_English
This dictionary is not based on the Oxford English Dictionary and should not be mistaken for a new or updated version of the OED. It is a completely new dictionary which strives to represent as faithfully as possible the current usage of English words.

External links:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/

So basically the dictionary is how the word is currently used in English. Considering dictionaries are descriptive not prescriptive I would think that would make their definition accurate. Also, Umm what were ou linking to again it seems to go to nothing.

http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/12450?red ... theist#eid
Like i said that's because of subscription nonsense though for some odd reason i can acess it again....
hmm...try typing OED into the search then once you're in there should be something you can "Atheism" into

[Even Less of Mackonia]

Atheism concerns belief in deities. Religion is only relevant to atheism insofar as religions often contain deities.

Though there are atheistic religions of course.

And Social-Humanism is one such religion.

[Even Less of Mackonia]

Some kind of equal moral worth inherent in all humans. In essence, the object of faith moves from the Christian God to Christian Ethics. That is the best way to describe the current religion of the West.

Most atheists recognise and accept that values like "human rights" are human inventions, social constructs that are entirely abstract and do not "exist" in the sense that there is some innate value baked into the universe that imbibes human beings with certain attributes. However, constructs, ideals, and values such as "human rights" are a way for people to apply the ideas kindness and compassion is practice. We can (mostly) all recognise that all humans (and many animals) are capable of experiencing suffering, and empathy (which is something that almost all humans are capable of) compels us to alleviare that suffering.

In other words: human morality and ethics is an entirely abstract invention that doesn't exist outside of the human mind, but applying this invention to our societies is mutually beneficial and improves the lived experience of all concerned (well, theoretically, at least).

If they don't exist humans don't have rights and its stupid to form a morality and political system based upon them. Simply admitting "it justifies muh feels" doesn't make that any less irrational than a Christian claiming "Well, God is a construct of man, but allows us to fulfil our innate human need for faith" - there is no more an innate human moral sense than an innate religious one.

[Neutraligon]

So basically the dictionary is how the word is currently used in English. Considering dictionaries are descriptive not prescriptive I would think that would make their definition accurate. Also, Umm what were ou linking to again it seems to go to nothing.

http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/12450?red ... theist#eid
Like i said that's because of subscription nonsense though for some odd reason i can acess it again....
hmm...try typing OED into the search then once you're in there should be something you can "Atheism" into

Did got the same thing that includes lack of belief.

[Uiiop]

Most atheists recognise and accept that values like "human rights" are human inventions, social constructs that are entirely abstract and do not "exist" in the sense that there is some innate value baked into the universe that imbibes human beings with certain attributes. However, constructs, ideals, and values such as "human rights" are a way for people to apply the ideas kindness and compassion is practice. We can (mostly) all recognise that all humans (and many animals) are capable of experiencing suffering, and empathy (which is something that almost all humans are capable of) compels us to alleviare that suffering.

In other words: human morality and ethics is an entirely abstract invention that doesn't exist outside of the human mind, but applying this invention to our societies is mutually beneficial and improves the lived experience of all concerned (well, theoretically, at least).

If they don't exist humans don't have rights and its stupid to form a morality and political system based upon them. Simply admitting "it justifies muh feels" doesn't make that any less irrational than a Christian claiming "Well, God is a construct of man, but allows us to fulfil our innate human need for faith" - there is no more an innate human moral sense than an innate religious one.

The poster said they don't exist in a sense meaning it only doesn't exist as you describe but it does in another form. so your argument just falls apart.

[Neutraligon]

Though there are atheistic religions of course.

And Social-Humanism is one such religion.

Is communism a religion? Social -Humanism is a religion the same way Communism, or Capitalism, is a religion.

[Uiiop]

http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/12450?red ... theist#eid
Like i said that's because of subscription nonsense though for some odd reason i can acess it again....
hmm...try typing OED into the search then once you're in there should be something you can "Atheism" into

Did got the same thing that includes lack of belief.

"1. One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God.

[?1555 Coverdale tr. Hope of Faythful Pref. f. iiiv, Eate we and drink we lustely, tomorow we shal dy. which al ye Epicures protest openly, & the Italian atheoi.]
1571 A. Golding in tr. J. Calvin Psalmes of Dauid with Comm. Ep. Ded. sig. *.iii, The Atheistes which say..there is no God.
1604 S. Rowlands Looke to It sig. C4, Thou damned Athist..That doest deny his power which did create thee.
1699 Ld. Shaftesbury Inq. conc. Virtue i. i. 8 To believe nothing of a designing Principle or Mind, nor any cause or measure or rule of things, but Chance..is to be a perfect Atheist.
1876 W. E. Gladstone in Contemp. Rev. June 22 By the Atheist I understand the man who not only holds off, like the sceptic, from the affirmative, but who drives himself, or is driven, to the negative assertion in regard to the whole Unseen, or to the existence of God.
(Hide quotations)

Thesaurus »
Categories »

2. One who practically denies the existence of a God by disregard of moral obligation to Him; a godless man."
This is the defintion that was on the page i just linked.
Did you just get the ODE again? you should be able to tell that the urls are different.

[Caracasus]

From what I've read on indoctrination into cults etc. intelligence, religious background (or lack of) don't have as big an impact as you'd think. There isn't really a typical person more vulnerable to joining a cult or whatever... illiterate ill educated people, postgraduate students... men, women... religious or not...

The key factor appears to be a level of alienation - it's when people are suddenly placed in a situation where they no longer feel connected to the social groups around them.

A group wanting to "indoctrinate" people (and that's a very loaded term in itself - does the army indoctrinate people? Do schools?) also tends to use some very interesting tricks to get people on side. They tend to present themselves as the "family" that the individual is lacking - a strong social network that almost every one of us needs. They often place certain requirements on the individual in question, such as giving up worldly goods or cutting all ties with their past life... they'll also make the social "cost" of leaving very high.

TL:DR - anyone can be indoctrinated and the methods used by certain groups are very effective. It basically works because we're social creatures, not because someone is more or less religious.

[Neutraligon]

Did got the same thing that includes lack of belief.

"1. One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God.

[?1555 Coverdale tr. Hope of Faythful Pref. f. iiiv, Eate we and drink we lustely, tomorow we shal dy. which al ye Epicures protest openly, & the Italian atheoi.]
1571 A. Golding in tr. J. Calvin Psalmes of Dauid with Comm. Ep. Ded. sig. *.iii, The Atheistes which say..there is no God.
1604 S. Rowlands Looke to It sig. C4, Thou damned Athist..That doest deny his power which did create thee.
1699 Ld. Shaftesbury Inq. conc. Virtue i. i. 8 To believe nothing of a designing Principle or Mind, nor any cause or measure or rule of things, but Chance..is to be a perfect Atheist.
1876 W. E. Gladstone in Contemp. Rev. June 22 By the Atheist I understand the man who not only holds off, like the sceptic, from the affirmative, but who drives himself, or is driven, to the negative assertion in regard to the whole Unseen, or to the existence of God.
(Hide quotations)

Thesaurus »
Categories »

2. One who practically denies the existence of a God by disregard of moral obligation to Him; a godless man."
This is the defintion that was on the page i just linked.
Did you just get the ODE again? you should be able to tell that the urls are different.

Yep this despite saying not to use the ODE.I would claim the above definition is incorrect as there are a large number of people who claim the term atheist who fulfill none of those. Typically we allow the group to define themselves, and most atheists claim the term as anyone who is not a theist.

[A Humanist Science]

Or they remember the near-suicidal mental torture that loss of faith in the Almightly entailed, and what that implied about the nature of faith in the unseeable.

At least in one case, anyway.

Aha, so I'm not the only one who experienced that.

There is a moment in the process where one's new disbelief in Big Brother is immediately balanced by one's fear that Big Brother will lash out and smite thee for thy disbelief. And as a believer, you will wish, desperately, that He would.

The trick is to get past this moment quickly enough before the slit you're making in your own wrist is too deep. Such is the grip of the celestial totalitarianism.

[Uiiop]

"1. One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God.

[?1555 Coverdale tr. Hope of Faythful Pref. f. iiiv, Eate we and drink we lustely, tomorow we shal dy. which al ye Epicures protest openly, & the Italian atheoi.]
1571 A. Golding in tr. J. Calvin Psalmes of Dauid with Comm. Ep. Ded. sig. *.iii, The Atheistes which say..there is no God.
1604 S. Rowlands Looke to It sig. C4, Thou damned Athist..That doest deny his power which did create thee.
1699 Ld. Shaftesbury Inq. conc. Virtue i. i. 8 To believe nothing of a designing Principle or Mind, nor any cause or measure or rule of things, but Chance..is to be a perfect Atheist.
1876 W. E. Gladstone in Contemp. Rev. June 22 By the Atheist I understand the man who not only holds off, like the sceptic, from the affirmative, but who drives himself, or is driven, to the negative assertion in regard to the whole Unseen, or to the existence of God.
(Hide quotations)

Thesaurus »
Categories »

2. One who practically denies the existence of a God by disregard of moral obligation to Him; a godless man."
This is the defintion that was on the page i just linked.
Did you just get the ODE again? you should be able to tell that the urls are different.

Yep this despite saying not to use the ODE.I would claim the above definition is incorrect as there are a large number of people who claim the term atheist who fulfill none of those. Typically we allow the group to define themselves, and most atheists claim the term as anyone who is not a theist.

That's fair. That's one of the reason i'm on the fence.
However how do you know that most of them actually do claim this? The internet which has problems with being a full representing the population even if you move away from anecdotal evidence?
Hell why would be a dictionary be good enough anyways? They just state their view of things without showing how they got it or how it fits group consensus.

[Neutraligon]

Yep this despite saying not to use the ODE.I would claim the above definition is incorrect as there are a large number of people who claim the term atheist who fulfill none of those. Typically we allow the group to define themselves, and most atheists claim the term as anyone who is not a theist.

That's fair. That's one of the reason i'm on the fence.
However how do you know that most of them actually do claim this? The internet which has problems with being a full representing the population even if you move away from anecdotal evidence?
Hell why would be a dictionary be good enough anyways? They just state their view of things without showing how they got it or how it fits group consensus.

True enough. My reason for believing that is simply that the vast majority of atheists that claim the title atheist that I have met use the term that way. That though is purely anecdotal.

[Uiiop]

That's fair. That's one of the reason i'm on the fence.
However how do you know that most of them actually do claim this? The internet which has problems with being a full representing the population even if you move away from anecdotal evidence?
Hell why would be a dictionary be good enough anyways? They just state their view of things without showing how they got it or how it fits group consensus.

True enough. My reason for believing that is simply that the vast majority of atheists that claim the title atheist that I have met use the term that way. That though is purely anecdotal.

That is as good enough as one can get until something solid comes around. Which is another reason i don't take it personally.

[Implacable Death]

The most easily indoctrinated people are children. End thread, next please.

[Hurdergaryp]

Personal experience makes a very poor argument.

Indeed, but this is the internet. More than a few individuals, no matter how insignificant they may be, tend to truly believe that their personal experiences and opinions are somehow not only relevant, but also the key to the absolute truth. And remember: you're never wrong on the internet, no matter how utterly and completely wrong you actually are.

[Teryia]

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

But to most, atheism itself is a religion. Therefore, are atheists not the most easily indoctrinated? Atheism is a cult now, maybe once it could be for the cynical (of which, a trait I despise in a person), but now it's nothing more than political power and selfish gain. It has turned into a abomination set on freedom from religion, not freedom of religion. This sad transformation now leaves atheism as a political cult set on destroying Christians for "privilege," and "secularism." It has no purpose of today than to promote feminism, "progressiveness," and freedom from religion. It's unconstitutional in America and is a violation of one's inherent rights as a human being everywhere else.

[Alvecia]

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

But to most, atheism itself is a religion. Therefore, are atheists not the most easily indoctrinated? Atheism is a cult now, maybe once it could be for the cynical (of which, a trait I despise in a person), but now it's nothing more than political power and selfish gain. It has turned into a abomination set on freedom from religion, not freedom of religion. This sad transformation now leaves atheism as a political cult set on destroying Christians for "privilege," and "secularism." It has no purpose of today than to promote feminism, "progressiveness," and freedom from religion. It's unconstitutional in America and is a violation of one's inherent rights as a human being everywhere else.

I don't think there's a single thing in that paragraph I don't disagree with

[Imperium Sidhicum]

The belief that there is no God is equally irrefutable and irrational to the belief that there is one. Atheism is thus just another form of faith based in belief rather than proof, and atheists, especially of the militant variety, are just as likely as religious believers to be receptive to ideological indoctrination.

That this is true is attested by the fact that some of the most fanatical regimes in history have been avowedly-atheist, and these regimes were no small extremist groups but managed to muster the fully-willing support of millions.

[Dahon]

Blame the ideology that kills for the sake of absolute consistency, not the atheism that leaves you blank.

[Big Jim P]

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

More a large priesthood indoctrinating them using the god-myth. *nod*

[Big Jim P]

The belief that there is no God is equally irrefutable and irrational to the belief that there is one. Atheism is thus just another form of faith based in belief rather than proof, and atheists, especially of the militant variety, are just as likely as religious believers to be receptive to ideological indoctrination.

That this is true is attested by the fact that some of the most fanatical regimes in history have been avowedly-atheist, and these regimes were no small extremist groups but managed to muster the fully-willing support of millions.

Atheism is not based on faith, and the burden of proof for gods existence lies with the religionists, not the atheists.

[Mad hatters in jeans]

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.

This is an interesting statement. The idea that many societies are heavily oriented toward physical wealth may very well be true, however I don't believe this is strictly limited to Western ones anymore. Considering a part of the labour process for many goods is from Eastern regions, this would suggest that they too have an investment in physical wealth.

However it is likely your own observations that are mixing causation and correlation in regard to atheists.

A more likely scenario is the people you have seen are in those same societies which are consumed by physical wealth and goods. As a by-product of living in those societies people will pick up the same values as many others.

I don't believe this is tied to religious belief per se, but a trend in society overall. As the old concepts and values wear away they are replaced by more modern (or post-modern) ones.
Or simply put, people are more willing to believe scientific explanations for events than the increasingly ageing religious ones.

...
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).

Here I think you're mixing political bodies and religious affiliations but even so I find this kind of statement not entirely true. Which Is probably inevitable considering you're talking about "the west" as if it were one entity.
("The west" is not secular on the whole, many countries considered in that area are still quite religious to some extent. The USA for instance still has strong religious ties. Although I personally hope that we do become secular over time.)

Interventions are quote controversial here, especially post Iraq/Afghan invasions. There are more recent trends of trying to avoid such mistakes again, so your statement that atheists in particular support this role seems to be built on shaky ground.

There were protests against such actions at the time, but curiously the popular narrative does not seem to register them.

Also the idea that secular belief is especially entrenched in hedonism and money is laughable.

...
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?

To completely focus on atheists (the idea of them even forming a single group is questionable honestly) is already a sign of confirmation bias having an effect in your logic.
Without giving sources to what you're saying the rest is simply rambling.

[Alvecia]

The belief that there is no God is equally irrefutable and irrational to the belief that there is one. Atheism is thus just another form of faith based in belief rather than proof, and atheists, especially of the militant variety, are just as likely as religious believers to be receptive to ideological indoctrination.

That this is true is attested by the fact that some of the most fanatical regimes in history have been avowedly-atheist, and these regimes were no small extremist groups but managed to muster the fully-willing support of millions.

Something something lack of belief.
Theism and Atheism aren't equally logically valid in the face of no evidence, when there is a lack of evidence ofr the positive claim, the logical position is to assume the negative.

[Mattopilos]

I used to be Christian, so one more anecdote to add to this.

I would say that is because we see the religion from the inside, and therefore can see the absurdities more clearly. Obviously there are those that accept them, but not all of us do. So here we are.