Free thought is not synonymous with atheism

I would like to clarify that the reason I am defending religion more is to argue that atheism isn't synonymous with free thought, which is the point of our debate; ergo, I don't see where the proposition has shifted as I am attempting to argue for the rationality and the free thought many of the faithful possess. I apologize if I was unclear. I suppose I should begin with our rhetorical exchanges, or rebuttals to rebuttals if you will. Premise 1 I didn't exactly say that atheism was a doctrine; I said it could be treated like one but what I said was that it has its own message; which is that freedom of the mind is freedom from religion. As I said in my opening argument I am referring to only the New Age Atheism. Yes, I do realize that Hitchens never said that about atheism; however, I remember him comparing religious people to North Korea, hinting at such. (1) I would also like to add that I do believe many religious practices are unjust. But like I am talking about the New Age Atheism in general, I think it would be fair to speak of religion in general, too. When looked at the broadest scope, religion wouldn't be unjust in this sense. If I were to bring up every atheist in history who's demonstrated evil on behalf of getting rid of religion. (e. g. Joseph Staling, Pol Pot. ), it would rather spoil our debate. I didn't say atheism was evil because of these people, and I don't believe religion in general should be seen as such because of Catholic Dogma. Premise 2 My opponent has a rather excellent and hard to refute rebuttal here, but I'll do what I can. Like I said, I am arguing that the New Age Atheism is not synonymous with free thought, as it takes a direct opposition to religion as many atheist organizations have demonstrated. (American Atheists, Freedom From Religion Foundation, etc. ) I am not arguing the superiority of anything, as far as I can tell. I am arguing, however, that free thought does not always lead to atheism. Childhood indoctrination I apologize, but does this mean children are to be protected by outside influences entirely and to be left to their own devices to make up their minds about morality? It simply isn't possible in today's world. And I meant when children grow up and become adults long after their indoctrination. Children, in public schools, are taught or "indoctrinated" with evolution whether or not it's agreed with by the children. Although I am not opposed to it, I am using this to make the point that children are exposed to influences that are disagreed with by many other people. I am not making a point on whether or not it's true. There is not way to make a completely uninfluenced decision, but that's not to say that free thought is still impossible. Influences are all a part of thinking for yourself in that they give one something to think about. For the second part of my opponent's rebuttal, I notice that he brings up the morally deplorable moments in scripture. However, I fail to see where any of this is actually condoned. Just because it's mentioned, doesn't mean it's condoned for everyone who reads it. For example, the Old Testament Laws, if you read carefully, were only given to the children of Israel, and not Christians. That took place many millennia before Christ was born. Ergo, it cannot and does not have binding on believers today. So taking this into consideration, scripture can be viewed as maybe historical accounts with many moral teachings weaved into it. And like I said, children, in order to practice free thought, must be exposed to as much as possible. In our world today, that doesn't seem to be a problem. The Impossible Claim To say that religion claims to know everything would also claim that it has no interest in moving forward. So this would be the natural assumption to make about its influence on science derived from this argument against religion. And I believe I responded to my opponent's point, did I not? He mentions that religion claims to know everything, and unless I'm mistaken, I rebutted by saying that it doesn't and explaining how. The Desire Not to Disbelieve You mentioned that atheists hold their intellectual positions anyway, regardless of the dread of death, and said that it sets it apart from religion. So naturally I assumed that this was what my adversary was contending since atheism would be the product of free thought. I apologize if I was wrong. Anyway, I'm not sure why I need to provide statistics. I thought I clearly referred to adults who hadn't grown up atheist or grown up religious and came to either one later in life. That would be a product of free thought, would it not? After those impressionable childhood years, these types of decisions are a lot bigger than they would be back then. But if Con still wants me to produce statistics, by all means I will. Good luck to Con in the next couple of days! (1). http://on.aol.com...