Deconstructing theistic brainwashing

I know this is site is designed for atheists to communicate and explore ideas and that opening theists’ eyes to the flaws in their theistic argument is just a by-product (but an excellent one from my point of view as an ex theist). Brainwashing is a powerful thing, and the brainwashed don’t believe they are brainwashed (again I know this from personal experience). Anyway, get to the point Bryan. Christians believe that atheists are atheists because they hate God. I don’t hate God because I now don’t believe one exists. But when I first started investigating atheist/critical thinking sites, I would immediately stop reading a thread when someone blasphemed god no matter how good the argument was. I was so severely brainwashed that it was like a severe electric shock, and the blasphemy was proof positive that atheists did indeed know god existed and didn’t want to believe because they hated him and loved sin. Screwed up, I know, but it is true nonetheless. So, at the risk of being shot down, when you are deconstructing bullshit or debating a theist (same thing) be aware that blasphemy is to many theists as a dinner bell was to one of Ivan Pavlov’s dogs. Enough said.

Jesus fuckin’Christ! If their brain, your brain and my brain got “shocked” :brain: it was to jolt it into a sense of reality. Blasphemy (lol) didn’t stop you, nor me - wanting to get to as close to what is true.

So some theist dipshit already stuck on all sorts of religious indoctrination squirms when reading Jesus fuckin’Christ! Tough shit. I fucking squirm whenever they offer to pray. Big fucking deal.

The first problem is dealing with the disinformation and lies coming from some theists. They are spreading the lie that atheists deny the existence of a god. I have often heard the phrase “atheists hate god”.

The second lie is that anything an atheist states comes from the devil, thus to be automatically dismissed.

Fortunately, with the internet and sources such as atheist forums and atheist talk shows, those misconceptions are being slowly eroded away.

Regarding your “devil” reference, years ago I confessed to a priest that my faith was failing, and he said that God wanted me to use my brain. I thought, “Well, that’s refreshing.” Later I repeated to him my accelerating rate of departure, this time he invited me to “reflect upon who was causing my doubts.” I presume I was being invited to contemplate Satan’s inducement. So much for using my brain.


Welcome @RVBlake

Yes, using your brain should carry a warning label “rational thinking may cause doubt”


I remember at church one time my brother was singing in the worship band, and the lyrics included the line, “I’m losing my grip on reality.” I looked at him and raised my eyebrows. He’s now an atheist, took him a while, but he got there.

Most of your theist dipshits have been indoctrinated from birth. Many of them are extremely intelligent, good people, unlike a dumb cunt such as yourself.

“Give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the man.”

Sorry, I shouldn’t have called you a cunt - they have their uses and I’m quite fond of the odd one or two.

@RVBlake Welcome to Atheist Republic, where using one brain and examining facts and positions is encouraged.


From Was Aristotle right when he said “Give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the man”? – Wonderinalexland

The average life expectancy was only about 30yrs in ancient Greece, compared to 80yrs now. Back in the day a boy would have already lived 23% of his lifetime by the time he reached 7; compared to today’s 7 year olds who are only 8% of the way through theirs.

If we adjust the relative age of Aristotle’s ‘7 year old’ to a modern day one, they’d actually be 18 years old. We could therefore re-write the saying for modern times: “Give me a child until he is 18 and I’ll show you the man”.

That may be a valid point, the following is interesting (not my quote) The Jesuits said ‘give me a child until the age of seven and I will give you the man’. From my 25 years of teaching children aged 5 -7 years, I would argue that there is little that teachers can do to change the impact of genetics on the character of the young child. In my experience a child with parents who are honest/dishonest, caring/bullying, selfish/generous usually demonstrates the same characteristics from an early age. It was reported in the press this week that scientists have discovered that even facial expressions that run in families result not from mimicry but from family genes. Science is discovering more and more that in the nature versus nurture debate it is ‘nature’ that has the greater influence over our characters. My question is this: If we are the victims of our genes can we truly be held culpable for our misdeeds?

I still believe however that we are culpable for our misdeeds, but that is just an unscientific opinion on my part. When it comes to Christian indoctrination of children, I have seen firsthand how powerful it is and don’t see these people as stupid for not being able to shake of faith when they are adults (well not all of them)!

Thanks, I’m enjoying this forum.

I called in an expert on this subject, who has a PHD and two masters on psychology. Additionally this expert has a lot of experience on school children within the age range you described. There is no agreement on your claim.

IMO you are confusing genetics with culture and the environment they are raised in.

You can take any child, transplant that child in a different environment, and their behavior will be altered.

It was a quote, as I have never been a teacher, but it is interesting that there are differing points of view within academia. I was raised in shit circumstances and it has had a profoundly negative effect on me. However, my dad was an alcoholic, my mother a narcissist, and one of my is brothers an all-around wanker who would stab you in the back just to give himself the jollies… I always blamed nurture but looking back perhaps it was naturethat led to our nurture being shit. I just don’t know and bow to those who have spent their lives investigating this subject objectively, something I find difficult to do. When I became a Christian my family wrote me off. But that is another story.

No shit Sherlock - I was one too. Go fuck yourself and if you call me a cunt you better fucking have a reason aside from wahhh wahhh wahhh feeling some stupid need to defend a dipshit theist who can’t handle “blasphemy”.

Yeah, I’m with Whitefire13: there’s no need for that kind of language.


It’s all good, just a cultural misunderstanding.

I’m extending a pass.

I believe @Bryan is an Aussie or New Zealander. They use cunt differently than in N. America.

In N America it is one of the worse words you can call a woman - very degrading.

In Aussie, if I understand correctly - it equivalent to dipshit (a bit worse) … any Australians can correct me if I’m wrong.

Use the name calling more generally…unless a deep friendship or “understanding” of the use.

For fucks sake … jesus fuckin’Christ, newbies