SeVeR

My concept? Read what I said again, what about it is fanatical? You are basing it on one sentence ("infecting every thought in a persons brain"), and you don't even know what that means. Let me tell you: I know plenty of so-called Christians who talk about God/faith/Jesus all the time. Whenever they are asked about anything to do with philosophy, morality, politics or science they end up talking about God and faith instead. This is what I would call "infecting every thought in a persons brain", and this is my definition of a religious person. You call this fanatical and extreme, but I see this as the norm. What about my definition would you call fanatically religious? Yes, fanatics are suicide bombers, and killers of abortion doctors. Where does my definition ever describe such a person? A religious person, by definition, is someone devoted to their faith, it's not someone who "thinks long and hard about the God question before unenthusiastically answering "yea.... I believe in God", whilst not going to Church or disbelieving the majority of science". You'll probably dig around online dictionaries now trying to find a dumbed down version of the accepted definition, but a religious person is someone devoted to a deity through faith, not someone who merely believes in God (a theist). You are describing a religious person as someone who doesn't go to Church. Lol, why am I even arguing with you still.

Read what I said. I said my definition of a religious person is someone fanatical. I did not say all people who call themselves Christian are fanatical. As usual you are reading what you want into my argument. "Simply put you're arguing as if the majority of Christians are fanatical" You cannot stereotype all Christians as radical Simply put, I am not. You can argue with yourself all you want. Twisting my argument so you can argue with it is another reason why I am ending my participation in this topic.

If in all seriousness you can say that a Christian Missionary is more likely to be someone who "unenthusiastically answers "yea.... I believe in God", whilst not going to Church or disbelieving the majority of science", then this discussion is over. You have gone beyond the ridiculous, and this has become a disagree at all costs kind of discussion, no matter how stupid you sound. I'm out.

lol.

So are these Christian Missionaries in the other 5%? Yes? Thanks for making my point.

I just read this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/8500246.stm It made me remember all the other times I have heard people mention the rude French. It is not mentioned in this article but I heard a lot about them being nasty towards people who speak very little or no French. Some of the things in this article are just plain nasty, and to someone who obviously speaks plenty of French. I hope their attitude damages their tourism. I'm certainly put off ever going there. BOYCOTT PARIS!

Well the Republicans always want to fight a war.

Ah, the greatest evil is committed from the best of intentions. So there is a woman in a hospital bed at St. Hospital. Her husband just died in the car crash she narrowly escaped from. Along comes a Christian to tell her about heaven. Is this right in your eyes? The woman might have rejected the advances of the Christian at any other time, but now she is vulnerable, she is more likely to accept it as truth. +1 convert. A criminal commits a terrible crime and is imprisoned. Eventually he begins to feel guilty. A visitting Christian tells him that by accepting Jesus all his sins are forgiven. +2 converts. As for children, I refer to my earlier point, if 100% of Islamic parents bring up Islamic children, and nearly 100% of Bible-belt Christians bring up Christian children, then really, how effective do you think parental conversion is? Get them while they're young! Fly into the disaster zones! Offer to look after these children, tell the parents you'll give them food, shelter and warmth! Then they're yours to convert! Disaster zones like Haiti are an opportunity!

In school you are not taught to believe in things that are as divisive and unproven as believing in God. Nothing even comes close. You make broad statements about politics, but what specifically are you talking about? Are you talking about democracy? - something agreed upon by almost everyone in our Western World. What are you talking about? I don't think you have a single example. You can't seem to tell the difference between being taught to believe something, and being taught about why other people believe something. I enjoyed learning about the Five Pillars of Islam in school, I wouldn't have enjoyed being told Allah is our Lord and I must submit to him. I can only take your word that you know liberal, scientific Christians, but I'll believe it when I see it. How are they liberal? How are they scientific? Tell me about these people, who from the thousands of Christians I have met (many having extensive discussions with), seem to break the mould. And you say "plenty"... where is this mythical gold-mine of non-moronic Christians? The argument was about how life-changing religion is. I was showing the depth of religious socialisation that exists. Religious socialisation isn't wrong because of issues like anti-abortion or whatever. The effects don't mean the method is wrong, the cause means the method is wrong; that cause being a selfish one.

I define religion as something that infects every thought in a persons brain. Every thought is equidistant from a thought about God. For example, a scientific query into carbon-dating or dinosaurs will correspond with the thought: "How can all this be rectified with God's 6000 year old Earth.". For every belief that the Bible and the Church instill in a religious brain, there are hundreds of other theories that must be disbelieved. Most of science must be dismissed because God is a permanent fixture. Belief structures are formed on sex, marriage, abortion, drink and drugs, swearing and language, attitudes to study beyond Bible study, medical procedures, stem-cell research, homosexuality, politics, and even dress-sense. Time is spent in Church, contemplating the Bible, communicating with God in their usual pseudo-schizophrenic way, thinking "what would Jesus would do", etc. When someone is religious, they are the sort of person I describe above. Someone who thinks long and hard about the God question before unenthusiastically answering "yea.... I believe in God", whilst not going to Church or disbelieving the majority of science, is not religious. So yes, religion has a much bigger effect on a religious persons life than education. I think you went up a blind alley with education really. Nothing you get taught in school really affects your opinions on politics, philosophy, and life in general. It has very little effect on the sort of person you turn out to be. If you learn mathematics, history, geography, french, and so on, then what have you done other than absorb facts and get better at problem solving? And of course children can be "given" religion. What a stupid thing to say the opposite. Where would Islam be in the Middle East if children weren't "given" their religion. You think 100% of Middle Eastern children just choose Islam? You think they've learnt about it and they all just think it's great? Christian parents in America precipitate Christian children, Islamic parents in the Middle East precipitate Islamic children, what does that tell you about the choices of the children in the matter??? Yes, there is an equal chance of God being true or false, I never said otherwise. My point is the same. Anyway, the real point I have been trying to make from the start is what is in my reply to Dr Brain. This kind of opportunistic conversion has to stop.

What if they want to learn about religion? In other words, how do you distinguish between religious education and other types of education? There is no difference. Becoming religious isn't education. Learning about what faiths have to offer is education. Yes.

indeed.

Well this is mostly a matter of opinion. Before getting to the relevant point of this discussion I'll say that coming from England, where about half the population is non-religious, I see a clear divide. Also, your statistics are meaningless, and I could just about guarantee they are wrong. People are classified as Catholics or Christians in polls even if they don't attend Church, and we know that many of them just put Catholic/Christian on the poll because they don't know what else to put. The divide is much greater. The relevant point is this: The parents cannot take care of the children. The parents give their consent because they want their children to be fed and sheltered. It is very probable that if the mission workers only wanted to teach the Children about religion, without a change of living conditions, then the parents would say 'No', or they would be more reluctant. So my point is simply this: The mission workers are using this disaster as an opportunity to spread their religion. Would you agree?

Honestly NBV, I have never conversed with a Christian who does have doubts...

Oh Lord! There is a God! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8499931.stm

I contend your point that children don't make informed decisions about education. Children have an innate curiosity to learn, they don't have an innate curiosity to be religious. I am sure that religion is more life-changing. The difference between a religious person and a non-religious person is vast, whilst education merely reinforces character traits that are already present and would still be present if the individual had no education. Thirdly, there is no general consensus on whether children should be taught religion, there is on education. The fact that there is a big divide on religion, with large numbers in both camps, is reason enough to concede that children should make their own decisions rather than being indoctrinated in something that has a large chance of being false. -EDIT- Simply put, if Scientology was taught to children in school, would you not have a problem with it? There is a difference between mathematics and religion, and that reason justifies one being taught and the other not. -EDIT2- Lets be clear, it would be difficult for me to say that parents can't teach their children about whatever they want, but it is easy for me to say that religious people shouldn't seek out other peoples children to teach them about religion.

The same can be said about almost anything. Adults will always tell children things usually trying to benefit them in some way. You hold a lot of your beliefs simply by what your parents did or didn't tell you in life. IF anything I usually find that if people are forced to do something they either embrace it or reject it completely. Like? Are any examples as divisive as religion? Are any as life-changing as religion? And how can a child possibly make an informed decision about religion?

Not a conversion attempt? So there is no need for fanatic Christian missionaries (probably with their own fundamentalist brand of the religion) to convert Haitian's who probably don't even go to Church, and who have just been categorised as Catholic by some survey that cannot possibly be accurate anyway? There's no difference there? Not a forced conversion? So the children are given a choice? If children could make an informed choice about religion rather than being told by adults that God is real, then Christianity would be dead by now. Seriously, it's forced, just like it's forced on any child who's parents are Christian. Children believe what adults tell them most of the time, especially when those adults are giving them food. This whole thing is opportunistic conversion. The vultures flock to the disaster zone to find new meat, and get away with it by being charitable. It's since emerged that the Missionary group leader is in trouble with the law in Idaho and runs an adoption agency. The claimed orphanage in the Dominican Republic actually doesn't exist. It looks like the motive here was more greed than anything, selling kids to adoptive parents for huge profits.

It has emerged that some of the 33 Haiti children had parents who were still alive. - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8499401.stm When will these vultures stop circling disaster zones for converts. They already invade schools, hospitals, prisons and any place they can find desperate vulnerable people.

Will a Christian who has faith ever tell you he has doubts?

So you have doubts, you just don't acknowledge them?

I understand how evidence and experience can lead you to believe the existence or non-existence of God is probable, but faith is to 100% believe in something, without any doubts at all. If you believe it is impossible to know anything with certainty, then you can't have faith. Or is that what faith is? Not knowing, but convincing yourself it is true. If so, this is my definition of stupidity.

I believed in Santa between maybe four and seven years old. I don't believe now. Are you comparing your faith to the faith I had then? That would be admitting your faith is stupid. I believe in one thing: It is impossible to know whether we know anything. If you believe that, then you can't believe in anything else.

Saying "whether you believe in something is the main thing", whilst also saying that the evidence doesn't matter, just makes me think you're trying awful hard not to mention the F-word, meaning faith (not f*** lol). Faith doesn't do mental patients any good and faith doesn't become any more valid if lots of mental patients possess the same faith. Faith is just stupidity in my eyes. Faith in something without evidence, coupled with that particular faith being desirable to possess for reasons of immortality (heaven), perfection, moral rectitude, security, and so on, just screams of believing in something because you want to believe in it, not because you should believe in it. Scientists do this all the time, they look for evidence to support a conclusion, to convince themselves it's right, it's bad science, it's religion. I don't believe in fate or destiny, that would be the same thing. I don't think I believe anything enough to have faith in it. I believe my toilet will flush when I push the handle, but then it might be broken... so, meh.

In a hundred years I still see there being Christianity, but it will be less to do with the Bible than ever before. The more we learn, the more we disprove the Bible, and the more Christianity will retreat into the unknowns that still exist, such as 'what created the Big Bang?'. I don't think the Bible can ever be rejected though, merely watered down, re-interpreted, and accepted more as being more dependent on the writers of the Bible than on God's actual word. If you can say "the writer embellished that part of the story" then that doesn't mean the story didn't happen. Is this an example of writer's embellishment then? Why is a day sometimes a 1000 days and a week 7 years? Is the original text of the Bible different and actually has a time-scale more in line with science?