Instigator / Con
2
1469
rating
339
debates
40.86%
won
Topic
#5246
Can you prove that all christians have been indoctrinated of their theist beliefs?
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
0
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
0
After 1 vote and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
Hero_In_Instatute
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Pro
6
1517
rating
9
debates
44.44%
won
Description
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Questions on the topic, send a message.
Round 1
Con
#1
Some sharp individuals in the comments.
Yes all christians, those that believe in the Bible, doctrines and teachings of Christ that follow all that, has every last one of them been indoctrinated?
That is the case the opposing side will be making for us.
Have they all been spoon-fed a persuasion just from the basis of a man or someone like a minister or evangelist, missionary, has someone accomplish this with the masses?
I yield the mic over .
Pro
#2
Christian - One who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ. (Merriam-Webster)
Indoctrination - Teaching; instruction. (Oxford Languages)
Indoctrinate - Teach or instruct (someone). (Oxford Languages)
My argument will include only one contention.
Which is that the first and requirement to becoming a member of any religion is through indoctrination.
Without indoctrination, you cannot understand the rules or beliefs of a religion. And without understanding the rules or beliefs of a religion, it would be inaccurate to call yourself a member of that religion.
So it stands to reason that indoctrination is the only way to join a religion and there is no skipping this first step.
There are many forms of indoctrination. But I'll talk about all the common versions.:
1. Grooming - The practice of preparing or training someone for a particular purpose or activity. (Oxford Languages)
This is when someone is born into and raised in that religion to adopt the beliefs.
2. Conversion - The process of changing or causing something to change from one form to another. The fact of changing one's religion or beliefs or the action of persuading someone else to change theirs. (Oxford Languages)
An example is when an adult catholic is visited by Mormon missionaries and is taught the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and begins the steps of joining their church.
3. Self-taught - Having acquired knowledge or skill on one's own initiative rather than through formal instruction or training. (Oxford Languages)
It seems to me that this is pretty self-explanatory. Someone educates themselves and joins a religion through their own choice, they have self-indoctrinated. '
Based on these rules, every christian has been indoctrinated.
Vote Pro!
Round 2
Con
#3
What the opposing side said didn't prove that all who call themselves Christian have been indoctrinated.
The opposing side hasn't disproved about those receiving a vision, a near death experience, a calling, who have been persuaded by words of someone and haven't been taught a thing out of the bible.
The opposing side hasn't proved there is no such element as a cultural Christian.
This is where you follow what others do versus actually learning what and why you're involved in a religion to begin with.
I specifically described indoctrination. Trying to move the goalpost to that of just teaching still doesn't help the opposing side as they have not disproven that everybody that calls themselves a Christian actually has been taught.
Upon doing a Google search for the word indoctrination, it is the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.
The opposing side doesn't appear to have thought of this in their argumentation but that definition did not say nor the broad one they provided said that God is the cause of the person's beliefs from the basis.
In order to prove all whom call themselves christians have been indoctrinated, the opposing side has to disprove that it's not God involved causing the persons to believe in what they do versus just being broadly taught, persuaded or groomed as they say.
In order to prove all whom call themselves christians have been indoctrinated,the opposing side has to prove there are no persons who call themselves christians that have thought critically or accepted their beliefs through a critical process.
Now the opposing side can get finicky and give pushback on whatever definition of indoctrination they think will validate their position.
But because the possibility of God , the spirit of Christ is there, that is a catalyst factor that has to be debunked as that changes the perspective from just a cause of being simply taught something.
Pro
#4
Upon doing a Google search for the word indoctrination, it is the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.
That is one version of indoctrination. While the general understanding of indoctrination usually infers people to believe it means rejecting critical-thinking, this is only one version. To assume that this is the only definition is a misconception. Not all forms of indoctrination discourage critical-thinking, so this is why the word gets a bad rap.
Con does not establish a definition for us to use in the description, so I believe we should use mine as it makes the most sense for what both of us are arguing.
Here are two more definitions of the word indoctrinate from separate sources that mean the same thing as my definition.:
1. Indoctrinate - To instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments : teach (Merriam-Webster) https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indoctrinate
2. Indoctrinate - To teach or inculcate. (Dictionary.com) https://www.dictionary.com/browse/indoctrinate
The opposing side hasn't disproved about those receiving a vision, a near death experience, a calling, who have been persuaded by words of someone and haven't been taught a thing out of the bible.
Even if not formerly taught, any of these incidences regardless of non-supernatural or divine intervention are incentives for these people to turn to Christianity. To make the successful transition to Christianity requires an understanding the basics of Christianity which cannot be done without indoctrination. That person must be taught by a mentor or they must teach themselves.
If they have former knowledge of the Bible but this is the first time they are joining, then they have already been indoctrinated but postponed the decision of committing or converting to the religion.
The opposing side hasn't proved there is no such element as a cultural Christian.
Cultural christians are pseudo-christian. That is, people who label themselves christian with no personal commitment or devotion to Jesus Christ.
However, all cultural christians are knowledgeable about the basics of christianity to pose as a christian, so they have all been indoctrinated to some degree. Some less than others, but indoctrination is still indoctrination no matter how insignificant.
I repeat, you cannot claim to be a christian without even a slight understanding of christianity and that requires some form of indoctrination.
The opposing side doesn't appear to have thought of this in their argumentation but that definition did not say nor the broad one they provided said that God is the cause of the person's beliefs from the basis.In order to prove all whom call themselves christians have been indoctrinated, the opposing side has to disprove that it's not God involved causing the persons to believe in what they do versus just being broadly taught, persuaded or groomed as they say.
Even if God is the reason for a person's belief, if God is the cause, then that only means he is the one who indoctrinated the person.
God's existence or intervention is irrelevant to this debate. Since indoctrinating is synonymous with teaching, whenever God transforms a non-believer into his disciple, he does so through teaching/indoctrinating.
God's existence or intervention is irrelevant to this debate. Since indoctrinating is synonymous with teaching, whenever God transforms a non-believer into his disciple, he does so through teaching/indoctrinating.
Why else would Jesus be sent to Earth, if not to indoctrinate the sinners and heathens into believing & accepting the True Word of God?
Round 3
Con
#5
"That is one version of indoctrination. "
Well it looks the opposing side would have to disprove all the scenarios that would be based on these different versions. The opposing side can start with this version and work the way across the list.
"Even if not formerly taught, any of these incidences regardless of non-supernatural or divine intervention are incentives for these people to turn to Christianity. To make the successful transition to Christianity requires an understanding the basics of Christianity which cannot be done without indoctrination. That person must be taught by a mentor or they must teach themselves."
This is all assertion not proven true by the opposing side . The opposing side is arguing in a secular sense based on what is naturally founded. We have to accept the possibility that a supernatural force can apply revelation to an individual versus indoctrination. The assumption is, "oh this can't happen without being taught". Yes in a natural reality of things but we have to consider supernatural or aspects outside the natural taking over.
The topic is getting at, how do we know all people called christians were indoctrinated just through somebody's persuasion, brainwashing or cultic process?
How do know all these people just believe something because they were told to?
The opposing side has to demonstrate all that. That is indoctrination, as opposed to receiving faith from hearing the words of a message.
"If they have former knowledge of the Bible but this is the first time they are joining, then they have already been indoctrinated but postponed the decision of committing or converting to the religion."
Again let us remember, we're dealing with all people called christian. The opposing side is picking at a subset.
"Cultural christians are pseudo-christian. That is, people who label themselves christian with no personal commitment or devotion to Jesus Christ."
They are also called christian and have not been indoctrinated. People that go to what is called a church building with their families, not listening , not learning anything, just going along as a tradition, culture, custom are cultural christians. Nothing fake about that. People that do this actually do it.
"However, all cultural christians are knowledgeable about the basics of christianity to pose as a christian, so they have all been indoctrinated to some degree. Some less than others, but indoctrination is still indoctrination no matter how insignificant."
Another assertion that has not been proven to be true. Unless you know every single person that has not gone to Sunday service because the person's parent said so and it was indoctrination instead, this has not been proven by the opposing side.
"I repeat, you cannot claim to be a christian without even a slight understanding of christianity and that requires some form of indoctrination."
Apparently the opposing side is unaware of the reality that the title christian can be used in name sake. We're not arguing true christians or not, whatever that really means. We just have a religious classification of a group called christians and the opposing side has not shown that all of them accepted them beliefs without critical thinking, has not disproven divine revelation instead and has not disproven being christian as part of a culture versus teaching.
Remember , in terms of culture, you can just follow what others are doing not necessarily learning or being taught or indoctrinated to do or know why you're doing what others are doing.
"Even if God is the reason for a person's belief, if God is the cause, then that only means he is the one who indoctrinated the person."
This is not necessarily the case. Again I say again. The opposing just glossed over this , I just said it.
"the opposing side has to disprove that it's not God involved causing the persons to believe in what they do versus just being broadly taught, persuaded or groomed as they say."
If you follow what is stated here carefully, how do we know it is not God causing the persons to believe in what they do as opposed to being taught to believe it?
Again, a calling, a vision, a revelation, a spiritual manifestation, all of these aspects are taken into account in anyone's personal journey guided by divine work.
Like I say , I believe the opposing case is suffering from just looking at things in a natural process perhaps from being negative/rejecting of any other method of receiving information .
"God's existence or intervention is irrelevant to this debate."
How so? Saying this is like saying God is irrelevant to Christianity or christians.
Is God irrelevant to christians?
This is sort of a copout abandoning the burden to disprove that there could be those called christians that were never indoctrinated meaning simply taught to believe something.
"Since indoctrinating is synonymous with teaching, whenever God transforms a non-believer into his disciple, he does so through teaching/indoctrinating."
Is that what happen to Saul?
See this is what I'm talking about.
You can keep saying indoctrination, indoctrination, indoctrination....fine. Christians that were taught about Saul learned he wasn't even taught to accept Christ. Christ came directly to him.
"Why else would Jesus be sent to Earth, if not to indoctrinate the sinners and heathens into believing & accepting the True Word of God?"
Scripture says faith comes by hearing the word, not being taught it. You're not being taught to accept. Non believers, atheists, skeptics can't rationalize faith coming out of the blue so they surmise it to straight indoctrination without critical thinking like a hive mind brainwashed, programmed cult.
Jesus said himself "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me".
So I leave it there with a resounding.....AMEN.
Round 4
Pro
#8
Apologies about the forfeit.
According to The Bible that christians take at face value, God emphasizes faith as the path to salvation. God has not revealed himself to any christian currently living because to do so, would contradict his teachings.
If Mall is being serious about his faith in God, he must concede this or provide proof that God has revealed himself to a non-believer.
But even revealing one's self is still an act of indoctrination. Therefore by God making a non-believer aware of his existence, he has endowed the atheist with the knowledge of his true nature. Which is an act of indoctrination. Extend.
Any atheist that debates christians has been indoctrinated about christianity whether they accept it or not. The only way to be christian is by having knowledge of christianity which is done through indoctrination, regardless of the form.
Round 5
Con
#9
"he must concede this or provide proof that God has revealed himself to a non-believer."
I just said Saul. Was Saul not a non-believer? Did he believe in the Son and what the Son did?
Did he believe in the death, burial, resurrection?
Scripture says what hinders me to be baptized?
If thou believe with all thine heart, thou mayest.
I believe that Jesus Christ is the SON OF GOD.
I didn't see indoctrination in there.
Saul/Paul was told to arise and be baptized.
This was after Christ was revealed unto Saul in that bright light.
All this was going on , where was Saul indoctrinated at?
The spirit acted on Saul, God moved on him, his eyes came open, no longer blinded and he believed.
Just as the scripture say, faith comes by hearing the word, not indoctrination. Paul got his revelation from Jesus Christ being taught of no man.
Saul heard the word of the Lord according to the scriptures.
The topic is dealing with all christians being indoctrinated in their beliefs.
Saul wasn't. The eunuch wasn't.
To believe on the son is to believe on the one who sent him (God).
A Christian is a follower of Christ right.
Jesus said take up your cross and follow him.
Do you think the person who does this has to be indoctrinated first or are people following him and will be taught along the way?
Much opinion I'm getting from the opposing side and this individual wants to play with the definition of indoctrination and all like that.
The opposing side doesn't have any scripture that anybody or God indoctrinates you into your beliefs.
Atheists or non believers posits indoctrination thinking they're disproving something.
It has not been proven that all people have accepted these beliefs without critical thinking.
The opposing side doesn't even to appear to know what the scripture teaches about receiving faith.
To say it's all indoctrination, prove that. Even the biblical scriptures can't back you up on that.
Pro
#10
Jesus or God appearing to people and them becoming is aware of them is a form of "divine indoctrination," according to the definitions I gave that remain unchallenged.
extend all arguments and sources
Vote Pro, aka me
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro cites a lot of sources defending their interpretation of indoctrination and showing that any way someone comes to believe in God would necessarily involve at least one of them. Con disputes this without providing enough opposing sources to negate Pro's interpretation.
Dishonest folks cast their votes again. That or obtuse ones.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Benjamin // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: arguments to con.
>Reason for Decision:
CON should have defined the word indoctrination in the description, to prevent PRO from successfully arguing his case based on a different but still valid definition.
>Reason for Mod Action:
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis, but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
tl;dr: please toss in another line or two about how the fight over definitions played out (I get that it ultimately prevented pro from attaining BoP, but how con proved his as preferable is missing), or mention of other contentions.
**************************************************
It's not that all are indoctrinated, some are really just so stupid that they believe it on their own. ALL of them are stupid however, even the smart ones. Being a human calculator isn't the same thing as being generally intelligent/wise so even someone like Isaac Newton was just an idiot who was good at math.
Yea the word “all” in this debate ruins it for me. All he has to do is show 1 christian that wasn’t indoctrinated and its over… if it was “majority” or “most” instead of “all” I can accept
Yeah that would be tough. I would probably need to find a unique angle.
You'd have to prove ALL, do you realise that?
I might play devil's advocate and accept this. It depends on the time I have. I'm already doing one debate right now.
can i accept this debate