Ask Lois.

[crowTrobot 2]

I'm making a statement against the inevitable fairy tale accusations. Notice, I spoke of fairy tale characters. There is no possible way you missed that. When did you become the one that glosses over the details?

the distinction you're making is irrelevant. obviously nobody would be moved to religious belief in a character for which no realty-based claims have ever been made. i was pointing out that, even though muhammad existed, as a christian you necessarily believe the stories of him are just as fictional as those of mickey mouse. yet those stories have moved people on a scale that is not really that far off from jesus. your claim that jesus' historical influence is somehow evidence that metaphysical claims in the bible are true is nonsense.

Read what I said. I said that a single artifact corroborating a biblical account of history is nice- no more, no less. I even, if you noticed which I am sure you did, downplayed it to the point where it's not necessary for these types of discoveries to be made to believe.

i was responding to your statement that finding a "very exact" biblical artifact is more significant that finding troy.

As soon as somebody asks a question that in anyway shows anything in the Bible as possible, proven by a division of science, they come swooping in and try to discredit it.

ignoring the rest of your "i don't understand science at all so it must be a giant conspiracy" diatribe, the point was not to discredit the artifact, it was to put it in perspective. an archelogical discovery corroborated by an ancient text is NOT EVIDENCE IN ANY WAY that metaphysical claims in that text are true. if it were people would be just as justified believing in zeus or thor as they would in yahweh.

[crowTrobot 2]

Those numbers are changing. We are seeing in our Youth groups that peers are having more of an influence than parents in religous choices these days. It used to be if you were raised Catholic... you WERE Catholic. Now it seems more are wanting to find their own path.

wasn't talking about denominational shifting. obviously world-wide in the vast majority of cases a child follows the general religious category of their parents (christian, muslim, etc). peer influence, media influence etc. plays a part, but parental influence is by far the most important factor.

[HollywoodAFD 0]

wasn't talking about denominational shifting. obviously world-wide in the vast majority of cases a child follows the general religious category of their parents (christian, muslim, etc). peer influence, media influence etc. plays a part, but parental influence is by far the most important factor.

I wasn't referring to ONLY denominational changes either. Many of our youth come to the church now because of their peers... not their parents. Sometimes... it's the youth that get their parents to the church. That is pretty cool to see.

[speedz99 145]

One question I wonder is what gets someone started in religion? Is it their upbringing? For instance, if a child is raised in an environment where religion is a non-factor, then how does he/she make religion a part of their life?

1. raised in religion from birth2. looked for religion after something bad happened in their lives (or if their lives suck in general)That encompasses 99.9% of religious people.

It's an interesting burden that these guys live with, ask me how many atheist boards I post on? Zero. How about science? Zero. Why is that? I don't care. They can believe as they wish, it is there life. Enjoy. Look at how many atheist post on here vehemently denouncing God and realize this- they must, for it helps to persuade even them they are right. It's like therapy, a mantra if you will.

I'd just like to mention that this is a poker forum. I doubt anyone here goes out of their way to look for religious people to argue with...this section of FCP just happens to be here, and it's a fun topic to get into. And yes, I'm sure that a lot of us enjoy it because it makes us feel intellectually superior. Atheists can't vehemently denounce God. You understand that, right? Atheists just choose not to believe in God based on blind faith, and some of them obviously enjoy poking holes in the theories of those who do. And please don't get offended by the "blind faith" thing...even you understand that there's no concrete evidence of God's existence, so by definition you have to go on blind faith if you are to believe in Him.

[crowTrobot 2]

I wasn't referring to ONLY denominational changes either. Many of our youth come to the church now because of their peers... not their parents.

yes, but nation-wide those cases statistically necessarily constitute a small minority, and a lot of the cases you probably see are just inactive christians becoming active through peer influence. if peer influence was the primary factor in actual christian conversion in the USA christianity would quickly deteriorate into a fringe cult (which it will do anyway in the next 50-100 years).

[HollywoodAFD 0]

christianity would quickly deteriorate into a fringe cult (which it will do anyway in the next 50-100 years).

Are you saying that you think a 2,000 year old religion will become a 'fringe cult' in the next 50 years? What are you basing this statement on? Just curious.

[Balloon guy 158]

Are you saying that you think a 2,000 year old religion will become a 'fringe cult' in the next 50 years? What are you basing this statement on? Just curious.

A. FaithB. HopeC. Great desire to be vindicated for his fringe beliefsYou decide

[crowTrobot 2]

Are you saying that you think a 2,000 year old religion will become a 'fringe cult' in the next 50 years? What are you basing this statement on? Just curious.

unscientific projection of how fast "non-religious" (atheism, agnosticism) grew as a category in most of europe as higher education became more advanced and more available, and how fast it is currently growing in the USA among recent college grads - following the same pattern but way behind europe's timeline. 50 years is probably too optimistic, but it's certainly gonna happen in the relatively near future.

[crowTrobot 2]

A. FaithB. HopeC. Great desire to be vindicated for his fringe beliefsYou decide

polls actually.

[Balloon guy 158]

polls actually.

lol

[FARGOpokerND 22]

your parents may not have taught you but the fact that you're asking this question at all shows how much influence there is here.

Growing up, the only inclusion of religion in my life was obligatory church appearances on the two main religious holidays, Easter and Christmas.

[Vick07 0]

wasn't talking about denominational shifting. obviously world-wide in the vast majority of cases a child follows the general religious category of their parents (christian, muslim, etc). peer influence, media influence etc. plays a part, but parental influence is by far the most important factor.

What about the scenario of atheist parents whose children are raised atheist, only to become religious later in life. Seems kind of unlikely the only ones changing their mind are the ones turning their back on religion, as I believe I've seen some testify to a experiencing a simliar scenario.Your environment influences your view of the world. If one is raised religious, they're probably more likely to see the world as less fantastical and miraculous. While on the other hand, one raised atheist may grow up wondering if there is something more to life than just this..

[crowTrobot 2]

What about the scenario of atheist parents whose children are raised atheist, only to become religious later in life. Seems kind of unlikely the only ones changing their mind are the ones turning their back on religion, as I believe I've seen some testify to a experiencing a simliar scenario.

i didn't say the only ones bucking their parents views were turning their back on religion. i said scenarios like the above have to be comparatively uncommon just based on simple statistics. children who's parents happen to both be atheists are a decidedly small minority in the USA, yet every recent poll shows atheism/agnosticism growing rapidly.

Your environment influences your view of the world. If one is raised religious, they're probably more likely to see the world as less fantastical and miraculous. While on the other hand, one raised atheist may grow up wondering if there is something more to life than just this..

i think your logic is flawed, since the only thing being "raised atheist" means is being taught to think for yourself, and to be skeptical about claims for which there is no objective evidence. while this type of upbringing can foster wondering about the why of life/existence, it directs *away* from religious fundamentalism to look for the answers, not towards it.

[Loismustdie 0]

A. FaithB. HopeC. Great desire to be vindicated for his fringe beliefsYou decide

This is where the mantra comes in.

[Loismustdie 0]

Why were there so many miracles and 'blatant' signs from God (parting of the seas, floods, plagues, et al.) in the past, but very few now?What I'm really asking here is, how many of these things were mistakenly believed to be God in the past? Or, indeed, how many things are we not giving God credit for here in the present (and the recent past)? Did God create AIDS to punish gays? Did He create the Tsunami in Asia a couple of years ago? Does He still decide how plentiful the crops will be, as He supposedly did in the past? Do believers give God too much credit for everyday events? Too little? Were the people of the past mistaken by thinking He decided whether their baby was a boy or girl?

There is quite a bit in here. First, he stated two things. One, that he would no longer talk to people directly- so, it's tough to say for sure whether or not God did some things, because he hasn't said so. I may have ideas, but no way to know for sure. Two, he told us to not to look for those type of signs, don't be a sign seeker. All of the miracles we need, he already did, culminating in that business with his son. Things that were mistakenly attributed to God in the past? Well, nothing. If God was that author of all, and he set a system into motion, doesn't that make him responsible in some way? As far as God not being given enough credit, absolutely, but not by believers. A believer should give the glory to God for all things. That's a process, though. Let me answer some things outright. I don't know about the Tsunami. It's possible. At this point in history, considering what the Bible says, God should be an angry God. Aids? Possible. Remember, though, and this is a very real part of christianity, Satan has power here on earth. If you recollect Job, God did not do those things to him, Satan did. God just allowed it. That dynamic still exists today.

[crowTrobot 2]

There is quite a bit in here. First, he stated two things. One, that he would no longer talk to people directly- so, it's tough to say for sure whether or not God did some things, because he hasn't said so. I may have ideas, but no way to know for sure. Two, he told us to not to look for those type of signs, don't be a sign seeker. All of the miracles we need, he already did, culminating in that business with his son.

cult-speak excuses.

If God was that author of all, and he set a system into motion, doesn't that make him responsible in some way?

If you recollect Job, God did not do those things to him, Satan did.

you're confused.

[Loismustdie 0]

This is honestly my first time coming into the religion forum. One question I wonder is what gets someone started in religion? Is it their upbringing? For instance, if a child is raised in an environment where religion is a non-factor, then how does he/she make religion a part of their life? Where do they get the idea about what religion is all about? How about yourself? Did your start in religion ceom from going to church with the parents?I'm not necessarily looking into reasons why they SHOULD, just reasons how they get INTO it.*This question comes from a person who has never made religion a big part of his life, mainly due to lack of the parental's inclusion of church in my life.

I don't know what the statistics say, but pretty much everyone I knew growing up had parents that were religous in some way. New members to the church I went to, same thing. What that says, I think it's to early to say. We have not had enough time yet to see how children raised by atheists react on any scale worth measuring. How will there childrens children be? There is no way to know. Me, personally, I was raised a poor black child. My mom started attending a christian church in Oregon when I was right around 6. Single mom in the 80's, 5 kids. God was good to us, we made it through. If it wasn't for God, who knows? I don't want to know. I spent most of my teen years trying out different churches, debating various pastors, trying to just pinpoint truth I guess, probably I just wanted to see what was out there in religions that I considered false. What I would do is I would show people that claimed to believe the Bible exactly where the Bible disagreed with them and then just watch the reaction. You would be susprised at the pastors reactions when they had no discourse- it was just,"Well, you must just be seriously misled" when the truth was with my knowledge I could NOT BE LED, at least by them. I am sure that I was arrogant as can be, I come off that way here now but that is not so much the case- now it's more about presenting the case/facts/whatever and then sticking to it, unbending. That's what faith requires, and most of the time it comes down to the fact that that is what the dissenting party is lacking.

[Loismustdie 0]

cult-speak excuses.you're confused.

No. Think. If I have a big giant hut over you, and you stay warm because of that hut, but the weather turns, and so I pick up the hut, and everything is fine and dandy until Mr. Freeze come along and sprays you, who made you cold again? Mr. Freeze is the culprit. Could I have stopped it? Yes, but that does not make me the doer. There is a distinction there. Now, ultimately, considering Job was a man of God he was deserving of Gods protection. God took it away so Satan could have his way with him, within rules. Read the account. Now, that's the case with Job. God doesn't protect everyone. Only his people. Therefore, most of the world is Satans personal playground.

[crowTrobot 2]

No. Think. If I have a big giant hut over you, and you stay warm because of that hut, but the weather turns, and so I pick up the hut, and everything is fine and dandy until Mr. Freeze come along and sprays you, who made you cold again? Mr. Freeze is the culprit. Could I have stopped it? Yes, but that does not make me the doer. There is a distinction there. Now, ultimately, considering Job was a man of God he was deserving of Gods protection. God took it away so Satan could have his way with him, within rules. Read the account. Now, that's the case with Job. God doesn't protect everyone. Only his people. Therefore, most of the world is Satans personal playground.

so god didn't set the system into motion and isn't responsible in some way?

[Loismustdie 0]

so god didn't set the system into motion and isn't responsible in some way?

Systems. Look at the question Simo asked, and the context, and the answer I gave. Look at the account of Job, or don't, I don't care, this thread is turning into more of the same, and tell me who is responsible for Jobs ailments? Who afflicted Job? God or Satan? You won't look so I will answer. Satan. Does God bear some of the blame? Yes. Why? Because he could have stopped it, even more he is SUPPOSED to in this mans life- Job was a man of God. So, let's think about something like the tsunami- is God responsible? No. He is in no way bound to stop something that doesn't directly effect his people, and even then he may choose not to, if there was a lesson that person needed to learn. Something like a baby- is God choosing what we have? No. There is a process in place for that, created by God. Now, in a christians life, he could effect that if he wanted. There is a difference in the rules between a believer and a non-believer. Also, think about this- in something like the Tsunami, who is to say that there wasn't one guy that came within 3 feet of being swept away but God saved him because that man is currently seeking truth? We can't say- there could be 30 or 300 such people that God spared, or protected. We just don't know.

[crowTrobot 2]

now it's more about presenting the case/facts/whatever and then sticking to it, unbending.

in other words you're incapable of admitting to yourself that you're wrong even if you were.

That's what faith requires, and most of the time it comes down to the fact that that is what the dissenting party is lacking.

i only lack faith in 1 more religion than you do.

[crowTrobot 2]

Systems. Look at the question Simo asked, and the context, and the answer I gave. Look at the account of Job, or don't, I don't care, this thread is turning into more of the same, and tell me who is responsible for Jobs ailments? Who afflicted Job? God or Satan? You won't look so I will answer. Satan. Does God bear some of the blame? Yes. Why? Because he could have stopped it, even more he is SUPPOSED to in this mans life- Job was a man of God. So, let's think about something like the tsunami- is God responsible? No. He is in no way bound to stop something that doesn't directly effect his people, and even then he may choose not to, if there was a lesson that person needed to learn. Something like a baby- is God choosing what we have? No. There is a process in place for that, created by God. Now, in a christians life, he could effect that if he wanted. There is a difference in the rules between a believer and a non-believer.

wow, blatant religious racism at its ugliest. i suppose you pray to a poster of pat robertson every day.

[Loismustdie 0]

wow, blatant religious racism at its ugliest. i suppose you pray to a poster of pat robertson every day.

You have no reason to even care either way, but if you were to read the Bible, which I am sure you have in some way, you would know that God IS exclusionary. There is nothing I can do about that. Pat Robertson? Don't pay much attention to him, but I see you do. I suppose it gives you something to point to, something to hate, something to whine about while you do your thing, but to actual christians he's an example of what not to be. Anybody else see what happened here? This is pretty much how any conversation goes on this site. You don't believe, Crow, we get it, and this is all fun and games to you because of that fact, but now, you are so 2006. Look around you- people are asking questions about God, about angles of belief, about ways of looking at things. Can't you see that this thread is not for you? Let the believers have a damn conversation once in awhile. At this point you are just coming off as petty.

[Loismustdie 0]

in other words you're incapable of admitting to yourself that you're wrong even if you were. i only lack faith in 1 more religion than you do.

In other word 99.9% it comes down to so degree of faith so I don't have to bend. Whatever line of thought you are challenging, takes belief in God to even attempt to buy into, and since you don't have it and can't take it away we are at a standstill. That's how most of this stuff goes, wouldn't you agree? As usual the obvious question is, what's the point? How empty is your existence that you must do what it is you do here?

[crowTrobot 2]

Pat Robertson? Don't pay much attention to him, but I see you do. I suppose it gives you something to point to, something to hate, something to whine about while you do your thing, but to actual christians he's an example of what not to be.

you're failing then.

Anybody else see what happened here? This is pretty much how any conversation goes on this site. You don't believe, Crow, we get it, and this is all fun and games to you because of that fact, but now, you are so 2006. Look around you- people are asking questions about God, about angles of belief, about ways of looking at things. Can't you see that this thread is not for you? Let the believers have a damn conversation once in awhile. At this point you are just coming off as petty.

you fail to realize that some of the questions recently in this thread have been made specifically just to point out how rediculous what you say is.