(July 14, 2012 at 12:56 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Isn't it a little fatalistic to cite environment? If that was how the world worked then how does change occur? Also, the masses could be ignorant, as masses might be prone to be. The environment argument, it would seem, should be equated with the argument from ignorance. (as always, I put this accusation to all sides of the theistic fence.)
It's not fatalistic, it goes to demonstrate how young minds are indoctrinated before they have a chance to develop critical thinking skills.
The most overwhelming indicator of ones religion is their environment. Sure, some small percentage of people convert, but they are the exception, not the rule. 2.5% of the population of India is Christian. That percentage has not changed since 1961.
The fact that a person's religion can be pretty accurately predicted by their parent's religion and the dominant religion of the country they were raised in is in no way like argument from ignorance. I would like to know how you equate them?
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
