Fine I am growing bored.
Here is your claim:
Stateing what something is not has no explanitory power to explain what something is as far as this issue is concerned.
I am claiming that whatever the truth is you have no access to it and there fore no way to judge in my case. So the issue is moot for this discussion.
If this is what you meant, then what is the point in saying it at all. It's like me saying it is possible for someone not to believe something because they want to in spite of the overwhelming evidence. That is perfectly true as well as perfectly pointless unless it can be proven to be the case when made in referrence to a specific person. Every word you have spent discussing this issue has not advanced this discussion one but. Of course people can be indoctrinated, I was in the Navy and was trained in this subject. Unless proven applicable it is irrelevant. In my case I happen to know it isn't possible I was indoctrinated or brain washed by anyone else because of some unique circumstances. Case closed can we move on?
It is funny that you claim that I have no access to the truth. Your constant denial of the obvious and propensity to make absolute statements on topics that are highly debatatable is evidence of indoctrination. This does not make it a fact of course, but it is evidence.
Further evidence is blind refusal to seriously consider arguments contrary to your beliefs and use of logical fallacy to avoid having to address good arguments up front.
Here is one of your initial statements:
A Godless system is completely insuffecient for the moral framework needed for society. A religous (God) system even if it had grey areas would still be vastly superior to a human institution based on opinion.
There are two absurd or, at the very least, highly debatable claims made.
1) That a society needs God to come up with a moral framework is not only completely unsupported .. many folks have come up with such a framework .. including the writers of the Constitution.
2) Religious systems have often been horrific and vastly inferior. The Catholic church legislating torture for people who did not agree with or questioned the Church, is just one example but there are many many others.
Someone who is not "indoctrinated" does not generally make such
absolute claims.
It shows lack of questioning which is the norm for those indoctrinated.
The concept of murder and theft being morally wrong was known and in use long before the bible was written. They have nothing to do with your god.
That couldn't be further from the truth or sillier in the extreme. Plenty of civilizations throughout history never heard of your bible and created moral frameworks for their societies. Show us one Christian based society where the prisons aren't overflowing with Christians.
Troubled comments on your absolute statements ..
So what even if true? Since the bible claims that man is given a God given concience that is exactly what I would expect. Also the oral tradition for the bible goes back to prehistory and so your point is unprovable anyway.
Talk about silly there are no Christian based governments except for maybe the Vatican. Since all men have a God given concience it makes sence they have a similar core morality. It actually makes far more sense given a God than if evolution produced it which it can't.
Here we have a blind refusal to consider what has been stated by resorting to an argument that cannot possibly be proven. How do you know that the Bible's claimis true ?
Then .. you make another "absolute" statement given (bolded above).
The statement that evolution can not produce morality is .. stated as a matter of fact such that it is not debatable .. is way over the top.
This shows that you have not considered for a moment the possibility that evolution could indeed produce morality.
Attempting to avoid the question by stating absolutes without support is evidence of indoctrination.
That would make sense coming from one who is indoctrinated into a particular religion without knowing much more of other religions.
Then you get called on it.
I have layed out my history several times and you can find it in these threads if you want but in short I was once as opposed to Christianity as a person can get so I am hardly a product of indoctrination. Even if I was your point makes no sence. You saying that if I have adopted a religion I can't possibly know much about evolution. That's like saying I build helicopters for a living so I couldn't possibly be good at golf. Unless you are some kind of geneticist, biologist, or chemist then I probably know as much or more than you about it. I had at least 5 classes in college that dealt with it plus I have a math degree with a physics minor which is very applicable to evolution. Evolution should not have produced what we have as moral realities today.
What I pointed out to you is that your response is logical fallacy.
Just because someone was once opposed to Christianity does not mean they can not be indoctrinated.
I also pointed out that physics and math are of little value in the assessment of the question of whether or not evolution could produce morals.
