Arcanus, if you are going to be a member here, you are not going to fling unfounded accusations of blackmail at people for no reason.
It wasn't anything like blackmail; he didn't threaten you with anything, he just made a conclusion that since you are seemingly unwilling to answer any of our questions about your beliefs, you are not to be trusted with any answers you have given before.
As for your comment about this being "completely inappropriate" for Rhizomorph's intro thread, please explain how this was any less inappropriate:
The Genetic Fallacy refers to a conclusion that is based solely on something or someone's origin. This has never been the argument that people have used for explaining why certain people are brought up in different religions. The argument has always been that location, for various reasons, has a large effect on the religion that people are brought up in. It is by no means the only factor, or even the main factor, but it is a factor. If I had been born to Iranian parents, I would have had a greater chance of being brought up as a Muslim than if I had been born to English parents (where I was brought up Christian). It's not a definitive conclusion, since I could have been born to Iranian Christians or atheists respectively, but what we are talking about is simple statistics here.
It wasn't anything like blackmail; he didn't threaten you with anything, he just made a conclusion that since you are seemingly unwilling to answer any of our questions about your beliefs, you are not to be trusted with any answers you have given before.
As for your comment about this being "completely inappropriate" for Rhizomorph's intro thread, please explain how this was any less inappropriate:
Arcanus Wrote:Indeed. Which further cuts the rug out from under Genetic Fallacy arguments (e.g., "You're Christian because you grew up that way" in home or society), since so many atheists were raised after strikingly similar fashions. No wind in that sail.To comment on the "Genetic Fallacy" (because threads always go off-topic, so going with the flow is usually the best thing to do) as you put it, I fail to see how deconverted atheists has anything to do with the fact that societies with heavy religious backgrounds tend to breed more of that religion. The point of that statement is to demonstrate to people that their parent's religion (and therefore their parent's upbringing, location, etc) is a heavy deciding factor on their faith as a child. That some of them grow out of it is completely irrelevant; most people change their views a load when they reach a certain age (I know my views on most things are very very different from when I was 16, or even a couple of years ago).
The Genetic Fallacy refers to a conclusion that is based solely on something or someone's origin. This has never been the argument that people have used for explaining why certain people are brought up in different religions. The argument has always been that location, for various reasons, has a large effect on the religion that people are brought up in. It is by no means the only factor, or even the main factor, but it is a factor. If I had been born to Iranian parents, I would have had a greater chance of being brought up as a Muslim than if I had been born to English parents (where I was brought up Christian). It's not a definitive conclusion, since I could have been born to Iranian Christians or atheists respectively, but what we are talking about is simple statistics here.
