Indoctrination

[SteveII]

deleted

[SYZ]

deleted

I vote this, definitely, the most well-articulated and informative comment yet posted by Steve.     

[possibletarian]

You are making statements that show that you are unclear about the teaching and process. If you become a Christian because of fear of hell, you have misunderstood the gospel. Four paragraphs into the Wiki on "The Gospel" and still no mention of hell, filthy rags, or guilt that Jesus died:

So what do you tell kids when they ask 'saved from what' ?

What do you tell them when they ask ''isn't my best enough ?'

The message of good news is described as theology in many of the New Testament letters. It relates to the saving acts of God due to the work of Jesus on the cross and Jesus' resurrection from the dead which bring reconciliation ("atonement") between people and God. The apostle Paul's gospel is of Jesus's death on the cross and resurrection to restore people's relationship with God. It may also include the descent of the Holy Spirit upon believers and the second coming of Jesus. Paul gave the following summary (translated into English) of this good news (gospel) in the First Epistle to the Corinthians,one of his letters to Christians in the city of Corinth:

Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, (1 Corinthians 15:1-4 NASB)

When was our alleged relationship with your alleged god damaged ?

Christian theology describes the Good News of salvation in Jesus Christ not as a new concept, but one that has been foretold throughout the Old Testament and was prophetically preached even at the time of the fall of man as contained in Genesis 3:14–15,[1] which has been called the "Proto-Evangelion" or "Proto-Gospel".[2][3][4][5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_gospel

Oh genesis, thought that was just a fluffy 'god made us' (albeit overly detailed, and factually wrong) story ?

[Astreja]

As soon as you start trying to regulate emotional responses -- for example, trying to guilt-trip people over the alleged sacrifice of Jesus; encouraging people to see themselves as "filthy rags"; or anything that plays upon fear of hell -- you are clearly in indoctrination territory.

You are making statements that show that you are unclear about the teaching and process. If you become a Christian because of fear of hell, you have misunderstood the gospel. {snip Wikipedia excerpt}

Putting aside the issue of whether anyone can "correctly" understand the teaching, Christianity is not just the Gospels.  The writings of Paul are also part of it, and they clearly are fear-mongering.  Furthermore, there are rather a lot of people teaching from that POV, so perhaps you should be straightening them out instead of arguing with us.

I somehow managed to get good marks in high school geometry without worshipping Pythagoras or having nightmares about isosceles triangles, so the comparison to regular schooling is an epic fail.

I don't remember making such a comparison.

Then why did you insist on using the Wikipedia definition of indoctrination and then resorting to a fallacy of equivocation and a well-poisoning by telling us:

1. According to the strict definition, teaching any ideas, attitudes cognitive strategies, or methodologies is indoctrination. This would include any values, ethics, navigating interpersonal relationships, priorities, self esteem, etc. etc. That would absolutely include any worldview--including an atheistic/naturalistic worldview--because there is no such thing as a worldview consisting of only empirical knowledge.

and...

2. Of course what most of you REALLY claim is that Christians teach their children these things and to accept them uncritically. While I am sure that may happen in an overt way in some households, the nature of the Christian belief does not put it in the same category as other beliefs about navigating the world (see my partial list above)

Emphases mine.

I stand by my statement that to prey upon the emotions is to indoctrinate.

[SteveII]

If you are tempted to say that naturalism is right and Christianity is wrong and that is the difference, you have begged the question unless you can prove either right or wrong. No one can, so again, how do you defend your claim?

All of your denials are based on outdated philosophical arguments.  Philosophy is no basis for knowledge.  Science and scholarship are, as I have said before.  I am arguing that I know certain things on the basis of science and scholarship.  If you want to deny my knowledge as I define the word "knowledge," then you had better be able to demonstrate where science and scholarship say I'm incorrect.  You can't do that because nothing you say is based on either.

Again, your knowledge claim that "no one can know" is incorrect, because it is based on philosophical arguments alone.  You need verifiable factual premises.

Addressing your 'knowledge' first, you do not have knowledge that my belief is wrong. I don't deny it, you simply don't and can't. By definition, philosophy, logic, whatever. What you have are opinions, not knowledge. You would be famous if you had knowledge that God does not exist.

Do you realize that each sentence in your entire first paragraph is a philosophical claim and not an empirical claim? Ironic.

That's the problem with claiming that science is the only path to knowledge. That claim itself is not scientific so it can't be true and is self-defeating. It seems you believe in a principle called logical positivism. I wrote this before:

Logical Positivism (or Scientism) is the view that all real knowledge is scientific (empirical) knowledge—that there is no rational, objective form of inquiry that is not a branch of science. At least three main problems:

1. Scientism is too restrictive a theory of knowledge. If science is the only path to truth, then there are no moral truths or philosophical truths (like human rights). Mathematics and logic are not scientific--they are presupposed as true *before* science even begins--how does is work that the only path to truth relies on other truths to get off the ground!?!?

2. Further regarding philosophy of science, scientific inquiry itself rests on a number of philosophical assumptions: that there is an objective world external to the minds of scientists; that this world is governed by causal regularities; that the human intellect can uncover and accurately describe these regularities; and so forth. Since science presupposes these things, it cannot attempt to justify them without arguing in a circle.

3. The claim that positivism is true is not itself a scientific claim, not something that can be established using scientific or empirical methods. That science is even a rational form of inquiry (let alone the only rational form of inquiry) is not something that can be established scientifically. So, it is self-refuting philosophy.

Also, ironically in a paragraph that charges me with "outdated philosophical arguments", Logical Positivism has been dismissed by most modern thinkers:

After World War II, key tenets of logical positivism, including its atomistic philosophy of science, the verifiability principle, and the fact/value gap, drew escalated criticism. It was clear that empirical claims cannot be verified to be universally true.[14] Thus, as initially stated, the verifiability criterion made universal statements meaningless, and even made statements beyond empiricism for technological but not conceptual reasons meaningless, which would pose significant problems for science.[22][35][36] These problems were recognized within the movement, which hosted attempted solutions—Carnap's move to confirmation, Ayer's acceptance of weak verification—but the program drew sustained criticism from a number of directions by the 1950s. Even philosophers disagreeing among themselves on which direction general epistemology ought to take, as well as on philosophy of science, agreed that the logical empiricist program was untenable, and it became viewed as self-contradictory.[37] The verifiability criterion of meaning was itself unverified.[37] Notable critics included Nelson Goodman, Willard Van Orman Quine, Norwood Hanson, Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, J L Austin, Peter Strawson, Hilary Putnam, and Richard Rorty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_po...sm#Critics

Unless of course I misunderstood and you will explain why what you believe is not a version of the verification principle.

[Aegon]

The acceptance or rejection of questioning premises is what differentiates education from indoctrination.

My religious upbringing was most certainly indoctrination.

Ultimately, whether my strict Catholic upbringing was technically indoctrination doesn't really matter. In practice, it was indoctrination, and I think I'm worse off for it.

[SteveII]

When all the counter claims/points actually rely on vagueness, it is hard for me to reply in specifics. I would love detailed arguments and syllogisms. But, like Alan V said, it boils down to "...I can confidently say I know you are wrong" and when we look, there isn't that much under the hood.

Well isn't the notion of god and the supernatural vague in itself, it's defined in such a way to be indistinguishable from non existence itself.

I would agree if not for beginning of the universe, the fine-tuning for life, the fact that objective morals exist, that the NT describes God in great detail, and the billions of people who have experienced God in their lives--to name a few.

[SYZ]

Stone the flamin' crows mate...

...the billions of people who have experienced God in their lives

Is this fucktard still rambling and ranting about this sort
of bullshit?    Methinks he should get out a bit more LOL.

[SteveII]

When all the counter claims/points actually rely on vagueness, it is hard for me to reply in specifics. I would love detailed arguments and syllogisms. But, like Alan V said, it boils down to "...I can confidently say I know you are wrong" and when we look, there isn't that much under the hood.

If we change that to "I believe  you are wrong," on what grounds would you challenge that belief?  Absent evidence that is up to the other person's standards, you're going to have a hard time changing that person's mind.  Until that happens, they believe what they believe and there isn't a lot you can do about that.

I wouldn't challenge "I believe you are wrong". That's a very reasonable position to have and can be perfectly justified.

As for your statement "There are literally no successful arguments for naturalism or atheism anywhere," that is flat-out hyperbole.  The existence of one person with a naturalistic worldview is sufficient to support it.  The same as for atheism -- The existence of one atheist is sufficient.  I can be that hypothetical person, if you'd like.  I see a naturally-occurring universe, and inadequate evidence for gods.  My view of the universe simply cannot be arbitrarily gainsaid, declared "unsuccessful," merely on your say-so.

But you can't prove or even show good positive arguments that naturalism or atheism is true. At best, it is an argument based on lack of compelling evidence--which is not a positive argument. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" and never grounds for a good argument.

[possibletarian]

[quote="SteveII" pid='192198' dateline='1583772856']
When all the counter claims/points actually rely on vagueness, it is hard for me to reply in specifics. I would love detailed arguments and syllogisms. But, like Alan V said, it boils down to "...I can confidently say I know you are wrong" and when we look, there isn't that much under the hood.

Well isn't the notion of god and the supernatural vague in itself, it's defined in such a way to be indistinguishable from non existence itself.

I would agree if not for beginning of the universe,

We don't know, neither do you.

the fine-tuning for life,

You mean for life as we know it ? Carbon based perhaps ?, you don't have enough evidence to claim it is fine tuned with us (humans)  in mind rather than this universe was simply enough for life as we know it to come about.  We don't even know if different universes could support some kind of life as we only have an example of one.

the fact that objective morals exist,

I'm not so sure they actually do exist, what are morals in a practical sense ?

that the NT describes God in great detail,

You mean defined in great detail, I would agree, but of what use is a god who is the same as no god. ?

and the billions of people who have experienced God in their lives--to name a few.

You mean your god or a god, and how can you be sure it's a god at all ?

[possibletarian]

But you can't prove or even show good positive arguments that naturalism or atheism is true. At best, it is an argument based on lack of compelling evidence--which is not a positive argument. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" and never grounds for a good argument.

Bold Mine*

You don't have to show atheism is true (as in no gods) if the person lacks belief they are an atheist, simply

If you believe in some kind of god, there is much further for it to go.

[SYZ]

For fuck's sake...

But you can't prove or even show good positive arguments that naturalism or atheism is true. At best, it is an argument based on lack of compelling evidence...

How can this fucktard get this so wrong?  Atheism per se is not something that's "right" or "wrong" like the tenets
of Christianity or Islam or Hinduism can be considered either way.  He obviously has no idea of the concept of atheism,
and repeatedly and determinedly conflates it with formalised religion—which it can't be in any way, shape or form.

I'm seriously beginning to think he's mentally deranged, and living in some sort of bizarre, internalised world of his own
manufacture.  I almost feel sorry for him.          Not.

[Alan V]

For fuck's sake...

But you can't prove or even show good positive arguments that naturalism or atheism is true. At best, it is an argument based on lack of compelling evidence...

How can this fucktard get this so wrong?  Atheism per se is not something that's "right" or "wrong" like the tenets
of Christianity or Islam or Hinduism can be considered either way.  He obviously has no idea of the concept of atheism,
and repeatedly and determinedly conflates it with formalised religion—which it can't be in any way, shape or form.

I'm seriously beginning to think he's mentally deranged, and living in some sort of bizarre, internalised world of his own
manufacture.  I almost feel sorry for him.          Not.

Yes, we know that the material (naturalistic) world exists.  In fact, we now know a remarkable amount about it.  Steve forgets that.  But what we don't know is that a spiritual (supernatural) world exists too.  And we don't need that hypothesis to explain anything.

Steve's problem is that he identifies as a Christian.  He personally has a lot invested in his perspectives.  If he didn't, he likely wouldn't bother with the apologetics.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Steve, you're just another preacherman.

[Paleophyte]

1. According to the strict definition, teaching any ideas, attitudes cognitive strategies, or methodologies is indoctrination. This would include any values, ethics, navigating interpersonal relationships, priorities, self esteem, etc. etc.

There is a not so subtle difference between the critical examination of factual material as presented by modern education and the required unthinking acceptance of the allegory, myth, bigotry, and flat out bullshit that constitutes your average church service.

If you can't spot this difference it is likely because you have been indoctrinated to believe that religion is fact. I hope that this clears up your misunderstanding.

Please share the "factual information" that proves Christianity wrong. If you give me some, I will be sure to get it to my children.

I don't believe that I said a thing about Christianity. For a good lark you can explain to them that the brand of Christianity that they're practising was concocted by somebody who never met Christ. Let me know how that turns out.

This is a great example of needing to be vague because the underlying support for such a position evaporates or becomes an obvious list of unsupported opinions if examined.

You mean like "mysterious ways"? I thought that I was pretty precise. Let me try again. Your average church him is a pack of lies, repeated in a manner shockingly akin to brainwashing, and laughably ridiculous to anybody not already indoctrinated. How you sit through that stuff without snickering is beyond me.

[Tres Leches]

I hear this charge of indoctrination all the time here. First a definition.

Indoctrination is the process of inculcating a person with ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or professional methodologies (see doctrine).[1] Humans are a social animal inescapably shaped by cultural context, and thus some degree of indoctrination is implicit in the parent–child relationship, and has an essential function in forming stable communities of shared values.

The precise boundary between education and indoctrination often lies in the eye of the beholder. Some distinguish indoctrination from education on the basis that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.[2] As such the term may be used pejoratively or as a buzz word, often in the context of political opinions, theology, religious dogma or anti-religious convictions. 

From <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination>

A few points:

1. According to the strict definition, teaching any ideas, attitudes cognitive strategies, or methodologies is indoctrination. This would include any values, ethics, navigating interpersonal relationships, priorities, self esteem, etc. etc. That would absolutely include any worldview--including an atheistic/naturalistic worldview--because there is no such thing as a worldview consisting of only empirical knowledge.

2. Of course what most of you REALLY claim is that Christians teach their children these things and to accept them uncritically. While I am sure that may happen in an overt way in some households, the nature of the Christian belief does not put it in the same category as other beliefs about navigating the world (see my partial list above).

3. If your worldview includes the firm belief that Christianity is correct, that is clearly not held in your mind as an opinion that can coexist with the opposite. You believe in the reality that, in a nutshell, humans have a serious problem and there is only one solution. The very nature of Christianity makes it exclusive.

4. If we have warrant to believe these things are true and we love our children, it follows that we would teach them that these things are true. Conversely, if we love our children and were not to teach them these things, that is proof that we don't really believe Christianity is true.

5. Whatever response the atheist gives at this point will probably be something akin to characterization the Christian belief as opinion and failing to point that out to their children. But you can't logically argue someone's warranted belief is an opinion without proving the warrant wrong. None of you can do that however without some version of a question begging argument.

6. I have even heard here that indoctrination is required for Christian belief. That is not true by the definition of the word. 'Inculcating' requires the notion of persistence over time. A complete defeater of that idea are the millions of adult converts alive today who becomes a Christian after an explanation of the Gospel.

7. The fact remains, the Christian's belief is warranted based on natural and revealed theology, the events of the first century, and personal experience (of themselves and others).

As always, I only argue from a protestant perspective.

You're one of those philosophy types that places a premium on debating the meaning of words. I'm not into that but if you are, that's fine. At least you admit the definition of indoctrination is in the eye of the beholder and thus subjective.

In my subjective experience, I was indoctrinated into Christianity as a kid, no matter how you slice or dice the word. Independent thinking wasn't encouraged and all I knew was what my parents permitted me to see.

Your belief that Christianity is "true" and "exclusive" is no excuse for constricting children's access to other ideas so they aren't able to freely make up their own minds about the world and what they believe in. Doing that is indoctrination.

Education, on the other hand, is freedom.

-Teresa

[TheGentlemanBastard]

Ah, so you want to conflate instructions given to govern an ancient theocracy with those given in the NT addressed to those who would be Christians and call them all Christian?  Especially when they are contradictory. No, NT instructions on how we are to conduct ourselves as Christians are not vague and none remotely compel violence.

And yet those who call themselves Christians do partake in violence, sexual misconduct, theft, lies, deceit, evidence that in fact their alleged commune with the almighty is simply untrue. But it exactly what we would expect if it were all made up.

Persecuting gay people is against the second greatest commandment. In context, Jesus was referring to how hard it would be for the early Christians--something they did not yet realize.

And yet the same alleged god ordered that they be stoned.

This is a perfect example of christers like Stevie wanting to have their cake and eat it too. According to them, and Stevie has espoused this multiple times, their gawd in unchanging and unchangeable, yet it changed from the old testament, fire and brimstone gawd to the new testament, peaceful hippy gawd. 

[TheGentlemanBastard]

deleted

Smartest thing you've said all year.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

But you can't prove or even show good positive arguments that naturalism or atheism is true. At best, it is an argument based on lack of compelling evidence--which is not a positive argument. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" and never grounds for a good argument.

You must be arguing against the gnostic atheist view, which is a sever minority view. The agnostic atheist view, which most atheists subscribe to requires no positive argument.

For fuck's sake, Stevie, you should at least understand your audience if you're going to preach to them.

[Astreja]

But you can't prove or even show good positive arguments that naturalism or atheism is true. At best, it is an argument based on lack of compelling evidence--which is not a positive argument.

It doesn't have to be a good argument.  It just has to be a better argument than an argument for gods.  I can see the physical world, and I have a good lay understanding of the major branches of science.  I don't see anything that would predispose me to think that there's a god lurking somewhere behind the scenes, so absent such evidence I have no compelling reason to assume that there's a god there.

[epronovost]

I would agree if not for beginning of the universe

There is a "beginning" to the observable universe, that's not exactly the same as "the universe" or the "cosmos" which might count more than one universe or a prior universe.

the fine-tuning for life

life is fine-tuned for the observable universe not the other way around. The observable universe is a lot older than life itself which is, from all we know, very rare and a fairly new thing. Implying that the universe exists for the sake of living organism is an anthropomorphic fallacy of hte highest degree.

the fact that objective morals exist

That's complete non-sense. There are objective moral systems, but morality is obviously not objective else there wouldn't be competing and evolving moral systems. This is absurd.

that the NT describes God in great detail, and the billions of people who have experienced God in their lives--to name a few.

This isn't really a good argument as it's either an argument of popularity which is fallacious and is self-defeating since the God described in the NT was abscent of human religious beliefs for about 300 000 years and isn't even worshiped by the majority of humanity or for the longest time.

[possibletarian]

You're one of those philosophy types that places a premium on debating the meaning of words. I'm not into that but if you are, that's fine. At least you admit the definition of indoctrination is in the eye of the beholder and thus subjective.

In my subjective experience, I was indoctrinated into Christianity as a kid, no matter how you slice or dice the word. Independent thinking wasn't encouraged and all I knew was what my parents permitted me to see.

Your belief that Christianity is "true" and "exclusive" is no excuse for constricting children's access to other ideas so they aren't able to freely make up their own minds about the world and what they believe in. Doing that is indoctrination.

Education, on the other hand, is freedom.

-Teresa

To all but the indoctrinated Christian indoctrination is clear, you only have to hear the ridiculous things they come out with especially as children, but of course just like a kid talking about santa or some other imagined thing it's considered impolite and cruel to burst the bubble so to speak.

Most Christians would claim that they teach the alternatives and objections to their religion so it's not indoctrination, but to teach a child what others say and them follow it up with a ''this is how we answer that'' ( in other words that's wrong and our answer is correct) is still indoctrination. In fact I would say that's the most insidious form of indoctrination because it robs the child of forming their own answers.
I have often wondered just how much confidence Christians really have in their message, they see their young falling away despite at the same time claiming they have a close relationship with the Lord of all creation. 

True religious education is teaching people what religions say and leaving it to the individual to make their minds up, in the U.K. this is how it is done in state schools, most children here  who haven't been raised in a faith reject most religions as equally silly including Christianity given freedom.

[SteveII]

I hear this charge of indoctrination all the time here. First a definition.

Indoctrination is the process of inculcating a person with ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or professional methodologies (see doctrine).[1] Humans are a social animal inescapably shaped by cultural context, and thus some degree of indoctrination is implicit in the parent–child relationship, and has an essential function in forming stable communities of shared values.

The precise boundary between education and indoctrination often lies in the eye of the beholder. Some distinguish indoctrination from education on the basis that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.[2] As such the term may be used pejoratively or as a buzz word, often in the context of political opinions, theology, religious dogma or anti-religious convictions. 

From <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination>

A few points:

1. According to the strict definition, teaching any ideas, attitudes cognitive strategies, or methodologies is indoctrination. This would include any values, ethics, navigating interpersonal relationships, priorities, self esteem, etc. etc. That would absolutely include any worldview--including an atheistic/naturalistic worldview--because there is no such thing as a worldview consisting of only empirical knowledge.

2. Of course what most of you REALLY claim is that Christians teach their children these things and to accept them uncritically. While I am sure that may happen in an overt way in some households, the nature of the Christian belief does not put it in the same category as other beliefs about navigating the world (see my partial list above).

3. If your worldview includes the firm belief that Christianity is correct, that is clearly not held in your mind as an opinion that can coexist with the opposite. You believe in the reality that, in a nutshell, humans have a serious problem and there is only one solution. The very nature of Christianity makes it exclusive.

4. If we have warrant to believe these things are true and we love our children, it follows that we would teach them that these things are true. Conversely, if we love our children and were not to teach them these things, that is proof that we don't really believe Christianity is true.

5. Whatever response the atheist gives at this point will probably be something akin to characterization the Christian belief as opinion and failing to point that out to their children. But you can't logically argue someone's warranted belief is an opinion without proving the warrant wrong. None of you can do that however without some version of a question begging argument.

6. I have even heard here that indoctrination is required for Christian belief. That is not true by the definition of the word. 'Inculcating' requires the notion of persistence over time. A complete defeater of that idea are the millions of adult converts alive today who becomes a Christian after an explanation of the Gospel.

7. The fact remains, the Christian's belief is warranted based on natural and revealed theology, the events of the first century, and personal experience (of themselves and others).

As always, I only argue from a protestant perspective.

You're one of those philosophy types that places a premium on debating the meaning of words. I'm not into that but if you are, that's fine. At least you admit the definition of indoctrination is in the eye of the beholder and thus subjective.

In my subjective experience, I was indoctrinated into Christianity as a kid, no matter how you slice or dice the word. Independent thinking wasn't encouraged and all I knew was what my parents permitted me to see.

Your belief that Christianity is "true" and "exclusive" is no excuse for constricting children's access to other ideas so they aren't able to freely make up their own minds about the world and what they believe in. Doing that is indoctrination.

Education, on the other hand, is freedom.

-Teresa

I agree with everything you wrote. To clarify my claim somewhat, when a parent simply affirms the truth of the existence of God, my argument is that that fact alone is not indoctrination. They can do that without limiting a child's knowledge of competing ideas. I go even further and claim that a parent can even claim competing ideas are wrong as long as they are truthful in their facts--and that still would not be indoctrination in the sense that we all think of it.

This has practical implementation problems. While you can affirm the existence of God to a 5 year old, you cannot describe the merits of naturalism and why you think the position is insufficient in explanatory scope with that 5 year old. SO, failing to teach the position of naturalism to a 5 year old IS NOT indoctrination.

[SteveII]

I would agree if not for beginning of the universe

There is a "beginning" to the observable universe, that's not exactly the same as "the universe" or the "cosmos" which might count more than one universe or a prior universe.

the fine-tuning for life

life is fine-tuned for the observable universe not the other way around. The observable universe is a lot older than life itself which is, from all we know, very rare and a fairly new thing. Implying that the universe exists for the sake of living organism is an anthropomorphic fallacy of hte highest degree.

the fact that objective morals exist

That's complete non-sense. There are objective moral systems, but morality is obviously not objective else there wouldn't be competing and evolving moral systems. This is absurd.

that the NT describes God in great detail, and the billions of people who have experienced God in their lives--to name a few.

This isn't really a good argument as it's either an argument of popularity which is fallacious and is self-defeating since the God described in the NT was abscent of human religious beliefs for about 300 000 years and isn't even worshiped by the majority of humanity or for the longest time.

Except I was responding to possibletarian's claim that the "notion of God and the supernatural vague in itself." This list, whether true or not, shows the vague claim to be complete nonsense.

[possibletarian]

I would agree if not for beginning of the universe

There is a "beginning" to the observable universe, that's not exactly the same as "the universe" or the "cosmos" which might count more than one universe or a prior universe.

the fine-tuning for life

life is fine-tuned for the observable universe not the other way around. The observable universe is a lot older than life itself which is, from all we know, very rare and a fairly new thing. Implying that the universe exists for the sake of living organism is an anthropomorphic fallacy of hte highest degree.

the fact that objective morals exist

That's complete non-sense. There are objective moral systems, but morality is obviously not objective else there wouldn't be competing and evolving moral systems. This is absurd.

that the NT describes God in great detail, and the billions of people who have experienced God in their lives--to name a few.

This isn't really a good argument as it's either an argument of popularity which is fallacious and is self-defeating since the God described in the NT was abscent of human religious beliefs for about 300 000 years and isn't even worshiped by the majority of humanity or for the longest time.

Except I was responding to possibletarian's claim that the "notion of God and the supernatural vague in itself."  This list, whether true or not, shows the vague claim to be complete nonsense.

Adding lots of unprovable assertions does not make something less vague, it adds to it.