Well if you love violent sports like your football and our football, then verbal brawls should be no problem for you. But if we are going to talk about sports making a god real, my Redskins (Washington DCs NFL team) sucks huge donkey balls, I'd say if there was a god, he's been asleep for the past 17 years.

All kidding aside, take none of what us say here personally, when we debate some here take the library approach and others here, like me, like to get down and dirty. But it isn't to attack you the person, merely the claims that you make.

Some come here with a claim and when we don't roll over and say, "Thats nice" they get offended. What they dont understand is IT ISN'T JUST THEM, OR THEIR CLAIM.

This site has had all sorts of claims, and not just about standard popular religion. This site just had a pantheist give that position up. There is a polytheist pagan here, she's nice enough even with her claims. We have an epic thread where we've been debating Capioskia who is stubborn as all get out, but it is nice to see that they don't go run screaming.

A former pastor just joined. I'd love to see you two debate.

Anyway, welcome and don't think we hate you, we just met you. But it would be a mistake to think your claims will always get kid gloves here.

Welcome.

Hey guys, thanks for the friendly welcome, Renee i like your avatar too ; )

Not that I have seen, I suppose anything is possible though.

Welcome.

           Knowing you are a fellow Patriots fan means you  can't be all bad. Remember the mantra "Tom Brady is my god."  I grew up in New England so I was a Pats fan long before it became popular, but for the last 34 years I live in the Toronto area.

            Tell me do you think the man quoted in Mathew 5: ( the beatitudes) is the same person quoted in Mathew 10:34 (I come not to bring peace....). It is clearly two different personalitys. When the bible calls J.C. "the Nazarene" the writer is not refering to his hometown (which did not exist) but to his Jewish sect. Nazarenes where known has quiet conservatives. A third personality type vs. Matt 5 & 10.  Turning water into wine was an aspect of the Roman god Bacchus,  Plus J.C.'s  birth and death are direct copies of Mithras' birth and death,  for these and other reasons I do not think any Jesu Christos ever existed,  the charactor is a conglomeration of several people some real and some fictitious.

             Respond early and often.

No, i lapsed and became a baptist!

Welcome!

From my observation, the most common path is from a faith held since childhood to a point where some puzzling apparent anomalies in the claims of the faith are noticed, often as the result of reading and education outside the context of the faith.

For the more genuinely curious people, a serious investigation turns up not the hoped-for resolution of the puzzle, but even more inconsistencies, and either a refusal to go further, denial, and an even stronger clinging to the beliefs, or a progression into a realization that none of it really holds up, into at least agnosticism, or into full abandonment of any remnant of respect for the 'faith' position.

Return to faith is typically the result of a life crisis, and an environment surrounded by still devout friends and relatives who offer the distressed non-believer a comforting refuge back in the faith.

I massively agree that for many people in the west the type of upbringing you have powerfully shapes whether or not you 'develop' faith. I also know from some of the child psychology stuff i have studied that the transition in adolesence from concrete to abstract thought as the brain develops leads many to go through a crisis of faith as they question their faith and realise others hold different views to them...

however this doesn't explain why in China and Africa, where the church is currently growing fastest (there are now more Christians in the southern hemisphere then the north) why so many people are becoming Christians from a different  or 'no' faith upbringing. I guess something else is going on there? 

Of course.

In China, it is like the reverse of the situation in Europe, where in most countries, and in many still, the Church is/was an aspect of the State, and people tend to drift away from it.

In China, the State is very anti-religion, and very much against outside influences, so adopting Christianity has an element of defying the State, providing an alternative to a system they don't identify with. Chinese have always been very superstitious and tend to believe in the supernatural in some form, such as 'demons' being everywhere. Charms and special symbolic characters to ward them off, even architectural features of their buildings being designed to impede the movement of demons. I was very struck by this in my two trips thru China.

In Africa, most people are in significant hardship, poverty, conflict, and as the traditional beliefs lose their power, as tribes lose their distinct identity to some extent, the refuge offered by a great unifying system has a strong appeal. Note that it is not a matter there of religious belief growing, more a matter of adopting a different version of belief from the traditional ones. They were always strong believers in the supernatural in some form.

So in both China and Africa, the general belief in the supernatural has persisted much more so than in the West, and there is far less of a tradition of scientific and rational scepticism which the European Enlightenment brought to the West, especially Europe itself. So when a person begins to question, there is much less chance of them coming across people and books offering an alternative to some form of religious belief.

So if they rebel against their childhood faith, it is more likely they will adopt another faith seen as in some way in opposition to the one they grew up in. In countries like China and Russia, with a Communist history, in the early days when Communism was coming in, it was often seen as the alternative world-view, so was taken up by the youth. Now the situation is reversed, and Religion, especially western faiths in the case of China, are seen as the alternative.

Welcome paddyharris,

It is very nice to see a Chelsea fan theist here!  I am from Russia and I am sure you know your team is very popular in Russia.

Back to our 'business', I have tons of questions.  

Some theists claim that the choice of a specific religion does NOT depend on cultural background and family traditions.  I always was puzzled by this claim and I has never seen any good argument supporting it.  I always thought that the choice of religion is almost exactly the same thing as the choice of your lovely football team.  If I were born and grown up in say Liverpool, there is very very little chance I will ever be a fan of Manchester United (and some certain danger indeed).   Isn't it the same way people choose Christianity, or Islam, or Buddhism? 

Thank you.

100%

I don't quite see just what you are arguing there. I was not talking about 'societal norms', certainly not in that sentence you quoted.

In both Europe and China, youth will tend to go against authority figures, both the State and their parents.

In Europe, the official Church tends to be seen as an arm of the Government, which reduces its appeal, so it loses out.

In China, it is seen as opposing the Government, so benefits from that in the eyes of the youth, definitely a win. They won't have been brought up in a church-going environment, so they won't have any impulse to reject it on those grounds either. 

In Europe, most adults are not strongly doctrinaire for or against religion, in many cases it is simply not a big factor in their life, so if the youth think about religion in big way, it is more a matter of their personal judgement, and the fact that religion would be in most cases seen as part of the establishment would tend to work against it.

The success of churches in the USA is another example of how they can benefit from not being explicitly connected with government.

it is a thought that occurred to me as I was writing that: if the government gets more directly involved in promoting religion, will that start to work against it, given the widespread antipathy to government intervention in people's lives?

Then there is the impression I get that people in the US feel much closer to their state governments than the Federal Govt. They seem to identify with the state govt when it 'stands up to' the Feds. It has pretty much been all state govts bringing in Creationist crap.

Interesting.

There is a - rather - large problem with the US government getting more involved in religion.  The number of religions to choose from.  Jehovah Witness?  Southern Baptist?  Scientologist?  How about Christian Scientist?  Lutheran?  Unitarian?  Catholic, Muslim, Pandeist, Wiccan, Hindu.......If you put representatives from them into a room, you can count on the fireworks going up in short order.  What ever the government does, it has to be for all the various flavors.  And it has to at least pretend to be even handed.  Which will piss some of them off.  I can just hear my sister, "They are giving money to the Catholics - IDOLATORS!" 

She really talks that way.

There will never be a federal religion in the US.  Too many choices.  And too many willing to die for it.  It might be that you can get close to a state religion - rather like Utah and the Mormons.  The trick here is that they have to behave to get federal funds.  If they go overboard, no more federal funds.  For any programs.  People pay federal income taxes and fees which then are returned to the states for various federally funded programs - like schools and roads and Medicaid (medical insurance for poor people).  It's a big deal to the states and a lot of money.

I just don't see it happening.  There are some people may think it would be wonderful until they think about all the consequences.

I think a certain British Biologist might be partly to blame for that stereotype. Could be wrong... Nietzsche was certainly library-friendly but FAR from politically correct.

This guy never struck me as library-loving or "politically correct"...

Literate, but not fond of libraries or political correctness either. He does like bunnies.

I don't think he's huge on libraries or PC talk, either.

Ditto. Pretty neutral on PC stuff (though I've barely scratched the surface on her)

I don't thinks she's spent a day in the library without a friend or two nearby, and she LOVES stirring shit up against OT passages and Bible-thumpers in general.

Oh, sure... he's SUPER pc and probably spends his days looking at encyclopedias... NEXT PLEASE!

EERRRRRRRRRR?????????????

DDDUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR?????

Huh????????????????

Brian, maybe the problem isn't 'perception', as you appear to be implying, but rather the simple probability that many staunch theists are a little perturbed and frustrated with how many calm, cool, successful and well-liked individuals no longer have any need for 'God'. It tips their sacred cows over...

Welcome.  I respect you and your right to hold your position representing Christianity,  however I have many problems with the Religion and especially the philosophies and character traits of the god of arbraham.  For now I will leave it at that. 

I think there is sufficent conjecture over the writings of the early church and the lack of support for jesus' existence in historical writings of the time to call into question the existence of jesus and not to gloss over these things in the way you are quite clearly doing. It does not matter what theological scholars say - the existing evidence is found in the books of the NT whose sources and authors are unknown.

There are 2 references in Josephus, one almost certainly forged and there are perhaps 2 other oblique references, one being in Tacitus, that cannot be said with any surety to refer to the NT jesus. Now, as you know Paddy, there were about 50 noted historians writing at the time jesus lived but not one mentions him directly and uncontestably. Josephus gabbles on about all sorts of minor folk. The chances he would miss some one like jesus, and the alleged tumultuous events surrounding his death, are remote.

What I'm interested in though, is why you believe the historical method can be employed to verify the certain existence on this planet of the master of the universe. Now, I know we can posit various things, and come to broad conclusions about people and events in further history. But jesus was not claimed to be just some guy, or even a caesar. He is claimed to be something completely different and the veracity of the case surrounding those claims cannot depend on the loose nature of the historical method.

Did jesus certainly exist? You cannot truly say. Was jesus the son of god and god himself as is claimed in the NT? You cannot truly say. The proof of these things lies in the canon of the faith itself. The evidence outside it remains subjective.

From your general tone you are a strong believer and are not here to have your mind changed. The fact you have these beliefs based heavily in the unknown and the unknowable does not give you knowledge of what is true.

All we can say with honesty is that we do not understand our position in this particular reality and in attempting to understand it in the only way we can, through the prism of our human minds, we may never comprehend it at all.

I would have folded like a deck of cards if I had to go through what Ayaan went through in her life. Of course I don't believe in capes or colorful leotards, much less deities, but damn, to put up with what she did without going postal or caving in?

Ayaan is a hero to humanity. She shows humanity that Santa for adults is not needed.

Indeed, but I think you underestimate the INCREDIBLY powerful drive to 'keep living' that nearly all humans are hard wired with since birth, including yourself, and is only "turned off" after extreme emotional duress and (usually) the feeling of being alone in the world - both of which are AKA "Suicidal Ideation". (Ayaan did not feel alone, trust me.)

While it's difficult to imagine some of the horrendous strife suffered by millions daily, none the least of which is in Ayaan's life story, you have to think "Huh... the human instinctual impulse to survive has kept the species alive for dozens of millenia, and against nearly impossible odds, just the same!" and then you might realize your brain starts doing unusual, inexplicable  things when it's well-being is threatened in the extreme. (The same is true of kids as well, but in most cases... exposing them to too much aggression and ruthlessness means they grow up with out any moral conscience whatsoever.

Does islam's popularity compared to Christianity's mean it is more correct? No i don't think the amount of converts is directly proportional to the 'rightness' of a religion or else a religion is 'more right' when it is has more converts at a point in history. Islam and Christianity (Evangelical Christianity at least) also have a difference in that a muslim is born islamic wheras you dont' get born as a Christian but have to make that choice for yourself. In pure statistics terms this means that Islam woudl have the base birth rate/growth rate PLUS anyone who made the choice to adopt islam. The 'rightness' of the religion has to be based i would think on the claims it makes not its popularity imho.

I'm certain I have mentioned this before, we want church and state to stay seperate, but a state run church would work against their own cause so the more intelligent theists will not push it. There is one catch however. If one did not believe in their own religion, but wanted it state run to force it, hmm, implications, dollar signs are more important than actually having people believe in this. (Think roman cathlic church in the 10th century and beyond) In light of this I'm just not really certain what to think.

Creationism in school is the main irritant to me, kids do not need this carp forced down their throat, keep it at home!

Yes the fun part though is that a state run religion, would be one religion. This is what would spark a fire. In this country it would undoubtedly be christian and fairly strict on types of christians. I don't think there is another new world to the west of us for the pilgrims to flock too though. For so many through history, certain religious philosophies did not suit some peoples own opinions and they started new branches. In a state run religious society.. I'll leave it up to the imagination, though we do have some other historical happenings to consider so imagination is not a real requirement.

I think that to some extent, it's about religion hitting particularly close to home for many of us. In my case, however... I believe that all the 'bad acts' done on behalf of a particular faith can be used as an argument in favor of opposing/abolishing said faith.

I guess the important thing about the 'bad acts' is firstly whether it is people just using religion to then act as they would want to act or if genuinely and clearly they can demonstrate that their faith is making them do it. If someone justified an evil act by citing their faith and yet it was clear that actually they didn't speak truly on behalf of it (e.g. abortion clinic bombers, that southboro family who call eveyone fags and picket soldiers funerals) then actually you can't use that to oppose or abolish a faith. You should use it to challenge the individual about how their faith is causing them to live in a way that actually dishonours God and makes people turn off him. I also know that although faith doesn't have the monopoly on philanthropic activity you would in the cause of fairness also have to use all the 'good acts' as an argument for proposing that faith is a postive thing, you can't have it one way without the other. I am sorry though if you have been hurt personally by a church/person (i infer it from what you say) there is no excuse for that.

As does any political, ideological or faith-based grouping. So on a scale vegetarianism is one thing but the people over here who break into farms and commit arson because they think the animals should be free or are being ill treated are an example whereby the ideology does not enable but maybe inspires?

Eeeggghhhhh... how many groups say they're justified in hating (It's more than one religion), having multiple wives, punishing homosexuals as a gov't right, and are generally allowed to stroke their egoes all day and night simply because of what one book says about morality and the transgessions of others?

I wasn't planning on going mano-a-mano about religion in someone's introduction thread; much better, more meaningful places to do that around here anyhow!

Here's AtheistExtremist's thread on "Can christianity be proved by objective evidence?" - pay attention to a poster called "Pmichael", and contemplate his thoughts on the matter thoroughly. I believe that you and him overlap quite a bit in terms of personal beliefs, and that he could add a great deal of insight to many of the philosophical and ideological dilemmas Christianity faces in the 20th and 21st centuries. (I also made a few "vicious" posts of no use to anyone but myself )

As for me... I'm done here. Listing the strengths and weaknesses of one faith or another can be a chore, yes?