# Losing faith in God



## stanley

I'm curious whether most of the people from your home country believe in God or not. In Germany pretty much nobody attends church on Sunday. ( About 5 % of the population ) I don't know a lot of people in my age who believe in god. Mostly the older people, especially the ones who were raised after the war and during the war got a deep faith in god. Another reason might also be that many of the older people don't have a lot of relatives any more which makes them go to church because they are very lonely. 
What do you think?


----------



## MarX

I also noticed this difference when I arrived in Germany.
In Indonesia , it's rather the opposite. To believe in God is something taken for granted. At least to believe that he exists. Not necessarily putting your trust in God. 
We don't really talk about God, but unlike in Germany, the "normal" thing is to believe in God.


----------



## stanley

There are still 60 % of the German people either protestant or catholic but even of them a minority believes in god. The unaffiliated group is the biggest one.


----------



## Fernando

Stanley, you have many statistics in Wiki on the subject.

Anyhow:

- From a "global" point of view, believers are a big majority.
- In the Western world you have many nuances: USA use to appear a "believer" country, while East Europe (partially reverted after the Communism fell), except Poland, and Scandinavia use to appear as non-believers.
The rest of the Western world is split. Religious practice is scarce, except for social happennings (weddings, etc.)
- China is officially non-believer, but there is scant reliable statistics avaliable.

If anyone want to challenge the data is OK, I am far from an expert on the subject.



> Another reason might also be that many of the older people don't have a lot of relatives any more which makes them go to church because they are very lonely.


I simply can not understand the statement.


----------



## stanley

Older people go to church because they are very lonely because all their relatives already died.


----------



## Coster

Poeple were frightened during world war they were praying every day. When you're happy you don't care but if something bad happens you say: "God please help us"... I guess that's the reason old people are still praying, they remeber bad times.


----------



## liulia

In my experience, believing in God is one thing, going to church (which church? which religion?) is another. What are we talking about here?


----------



## Outsider

Links to various statistics were posted in this older thread about religiosity in Europe versus the U.S.


----------



## Víctor Pérez

liulia said:


> In my experience, believing in God is one thing, going to church (which church? which religion?) is another. What are we talking about here?


 
I agree with *liulia*: your question, *stanley*, is a bit confusing as the faith on God, in my opinion, can't be mixed to the fact to go to church.

Nevertheless, I can tell you that in Spain I meet more and more people that do not believe in the existence of God. You might like to know that those people are not only young people but elderly people too (personally, I am an atheist since I was a teenager).


----------



## Drechuin

> I agree with *liulia*: your question, *stanley*, is a bit confusing as the faith on God, in my opinion, can't be mixed to the fact to go to church.



More than that, we should make a distinction between practising a religion (going to church), believing in a religion (in Bible's god, in Koran's Allah...) and being theist.


----------



## MarX

Fernando said:


> USA use to appear a "believer" country, while East Europe (partially reverted after the Communism fell), except Poland and Scandinavia use to appear as non-believers.


I've always thought that Denmark is relatively non-believer. I know that Norway is a pretty "believer" country, though.


----------



## zebedee

*MODERATOR NOTE:
*
Just a quick reminder to all participants in this thread of our policy on religious topics:



> *Religious topics
> 
> *​ WordReference is about language.​ WordReference welcomes members from all cultural backgrounds and belief systems – including religious faithful, non-religious believers in a higher power, agnostics, atheists, and others.
> 
> Religious topics are welcome, but the tone of each post must remain cordial and respectful of others and their beliefs.
> ​ This is not a forum for the promotion of religious beliefs. Posts that attempt to denigrate others’ points of view or lifestyle, promote one faith as “the only truth”, or attempt in any way to proselytize will be removed.
> ​  We may discuss religion, within the rules of the forum, but not try to persuade other people to adopt our personal belief system.
> 
> Quotations from any religious scripture are *not* *appropriate* other than as a topic for discussion. Stating that something is true because “My Holy Book says so,” is not useful. For many members, your Holy Book is not their Holy Book.



Any post that infringes this policy will be removed.

Thanks for your cooperation!

zebedee
Moderator


----------



## Sepia

stanley said:


> There are still 60 % of the German people either protestant or catholic but even of them a minority believes in god. The unaffiliated group is the biggest one.



I am sure a lot of people believe in "god" in some way or the other - but it does not necessarily have to be the image of God dictated to us by the dogmatic religions, does it? I know lots of people with an image of a major spiritual force in the universe of some kind that does not fit into any of the religions on the market. 

It always annoys me that some people talk abot being religious or believing in God only mean believing in the word of the Bible - and probably in the most dogmatic way possible.


----------



## liulia

Zebedee - thank you for reminding us of these guidelines - I find them sensible and helpful. They provide a framework within which we may actually learn something from one another!

Sepia - even believing in the God of the Bible can mean something different for each person. After all, people have been persecuted, wars have been fought, all in the name of a God who teaches love and peace!

I sometimes think that, across all national, cultural, and religious boundaries, there are lots and lots of people who believe in a God of Love and Peace. Some may not even belong to any formal religion. But whatever name we give to this God, does it not have to be, by definition, the same God?


----------



## Víctor Pérez

liulia said:


> But whatever name we give to this God, does it not have to be, by definition, the same God?



If I was a believer, I would think as you, *liulia*. As I'm not, I just think there are as many Gods than believers.


----------



## Fernando

Víctor Pérez said:


> If I was a believer, I would think as you, *liulia*. As I'm not, I just think there are as many Gods than believers.



In monotheism, if it exists a God, it is one and only. If it does not exists, it does not exist ayone.

Discussing tautologies is funny, isn't it?


----------



## Hockey13

Fernando said:


> - From a "global" point of view, believers are a big majority.
> - In the Western world you have many nuances: USA use to appear a "believer" country, while East Europe (partially reverted after the Communism fell), except Poland and Scandinavia use to appear as non-believers.
> The rest of the Western world is split. Religious practice is scarce, except for social happennings (weddings, etc.)
> - China is officially non-believer, but there is scant reliable statistics avaliable.
> 
> If anyone want to challenge the data is OK, I am far from an expert on the subject.
> 
> I simply can not understand the statement.



I think this post best summarizes, in many different ways, the trouble with a thread like this. The only semi-reliable pieces of information are those presented to us via reputable stats, and even the reputable stats are sketchy at best. It's easy to make sweeping generalizations about this country and that, but that's just not how the world works. These sorts of trends vary depending on lots of things, not the least of which is geopolitics. For instance you say that the US used to "appear a believer country," what exactly do you mean? During this time period were people in Niagara Falls, New York more likely to believe in a god than people in Niagara Falls, Ontario? Do the trends in New York City have anything to do with the trends in Tuscaloosa, Alabama? What does it mean that rural areas in the U.S. tend to have higher rates of church attendance than urban areas? Does church attendance tell us anything at all about "faith?" What is faith?

In my particular town, it seemed to be the norm to be an agnostic or atheist, or at the very least a questioning religious person. But then there was one kid who joined the Nation of Islam and stopped being my friend because I was a white devil to him. There were other kids who were "radically" Christian. There were girls who wore hijabs because their families were "fresh off the boat" from a more traditionally Muslim country. Then again, people could have been suppressing stronger views because those tended to appear to be the minority views. But none of this represents in any way what the situation is in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, where religiousness _tends_ to be more the norm, but I've met a whole bunch of atheists and agnostics down here as well. Then you have to factor in how 9/11 affected faith in the United States, or how a suicide bombing affects faith in Palestine or Israel, or how the U.S. invasion of Iraq affected faith in Iraq or other countries. The list goes on and on and on, and in the end the point is:

Generalizing based on sketchy information is bad, mkay.


----------



## Víctor Pérez

Fernando said:


> In monotheism, if it exists a God, it is one and only. If it does not exists, it does not exist ayone.
> 
> Discussing tautologies is funny, isn't it?



I can't see tautologies in this discussion, *Fernando*.

What I mean is that as far I noticed, every believer imagine God in his own way. No matter if they are Christians, Muslims, Buddhists or whatever: two followers of a same religion will describe God in a different way, accordingly to their own personality, culture and emotional intelligence. Every believer makes his own personal God. In the other hand, even if I'm not a believer, I find this healthier than if all of then had exactly the same idea of God, which I think would be worrying.


----------



## stanley

Víctor Pérez said:


> I can't see tautologies in this discussion, *Fernando*.
> 
> What I mean is that as far I noticed, every believer imagine God in his own way. No matter if they are Christians, Muslims, Buddhists or whatever: two followers of a same religion will describe God in a different way, accordingly to their own personality, culture and emotional intelligence. Every believer makes his own personal God. In the other hand, even if I'm not a believer, I find this healthier than if all of then had exactly the same idea of God, which I think would be worrying.


I don't think religions are good in general.  They cause wars, death and many more dangerous things. Look at Hitler's outrages and the whole terror thing. That are just two examples of loads I could name. Everything would be better without religions.


----------



## Cnaeius

stanley said:


> I don't think religions are good in general.  They cause wars, death and many more dangerous things. Look at Hitler's outrages and the whole terror thing. That are just two examples of loads I could name. Everything would be better without religions.



People cause wars, not religions.
Hitler was atheist and atheism per se does not cause wars and outrages


----------



## Sepia

liulia said:


> ...
> 
> Sepia - even believing in the God of the Bible can mean something different for each person. After all, people have been persecuted, wars have been fought, all in the name of a God who teaches love and peace!
> 
> ...



Of course. Only, those who have the last word to be said in the main Muslim and Christian/Jewish religious organisations think otherwise about this. They do not grant their members the right to think for themselves. 
They never did. It is part of their tradition to attempt to force people not to question their view of things.

If I were a priest in any of the major Chritian churches and wrote a magazine article under the follwing viewpoint: Jesus was a wonderful person who has had an immense impact on people in his time and was cruelly murdered - like political activists often are - not because he wanted this to happen for any reason at all, but because it simply happened - but there is no way he was the personification of any god - then I would definitely get in trouble. 

It would not matter if I were still preaching the official version in the Church and publishing this under my own name. There is no way they would respect my rights as an employee or my constitutional right to free speech.


----------



## Fernando

stanley said:


> I don't think religions are good in general.  They cause wars, death and many more dangerous things. Look at Hitler's outrages and the whole terror thing. That are just two examples of loads I could name. Everything would be better without religions.



Could you please provide us an example of a current atheist country, where your Uthopia makes true? 

I only find a few examples:

- Albania 1945-89
- Cambodia under the Khmer
- China under Mao.

Which of them do you refer to?

Partially:
- Mongols 12th-14th century
- Germany 1933-45
- USSR 1917-89


----------



## Fernando

Víctor Pérez said:


> I can't see tautologies in this discussion, *Fernando*..





GOD is SPANISH = GOD is GOD = SPANISH is GOD.

Obviously, kidding.



Víctor Pérez said:


> Every believer makes his own personal God. In the other hand, even if I'm not a believer, I find this healthier than if all of then had exactly the same idea of God, which I think would be worrying.



Do you think it is worrying if two people have exactly (or similar) idea of "Víctor Pérez"?


----------



## argentina84

Many people say they believe in God here, but I think that they don't. It's just tradition in most of the cases. If the mayority of the people believed in God,this country and the world would be better in many, many respects. 
   Of course, I disaprove the violations to human rights carried on under the name of God. I think that those people do not believe in God, either. 
   And it is wrong to lose faith in God because of the acts of humans. I'd rather lose faith in mankind, which is something I am struggling not to do. Many people make it very difficult for me to have hope in the future and in mankind. 

Regards


----------



## ernest_

Fernando said:


> In monotheism, if it exists a God, it is one and only. If it does not exists, it does not exist ayone.



Monotheism is a belief, and beliefs do not prove or disprove anything per se, so  you should better leave that one out of your equation.


----------



## Sepia

Fernando said:


> Could you please provide us an example of a current atheist country, where your Uthopia makes true?
> 
> I only find a few examples:
> 
> - Albania 1945-89
> - Cambodia under the Khmer
> - China under Mao.
> 
> Which of them do you refer to?
> 
> Partially:
> - Mongols 12th-14th century
> - Germany 1933-45
> - USSR 1917-89




I don't think religions cause wars, but the organisations that advocate them often do. However, none of these countries you mention were basically atheist just because somebody found it convenient to ban the practice of religion.


----------



## Fernando

Sepia said:


> I don't think religions cause wars, but the organisations that advocate them often do. However, none of these countries you mention were basically atheist just because somebody found it convenient to ban the practice of religion.



None of the countries you could have in mind were religious just because somebody found it convenient to promote or enforce the practice of religion.

So, can I only "falsate" your statement if I find a country where all and every of his dwellers is atheist. Then, I must confess I can not find none.


----------



## Athaulf

Sepia said:


> If I were a priest in any of the major Chritian churches and wrote a magazine article under the follwing viewpoint: Jesus was a wonderful person who has had an immense impact on people in his time and was cruelly murdered - like political activists often are - not because he wanted this to happen for any reason at all, but because it simply happened - but there is no way he was the personification of any god - then I would definitely get in trouble.
> 
> It would not matter if I were still preaching the official version in the Church and publishing this under my own name. There is no way they would respect my rights as an employee or my constitutional right to free speech.



By analogy, imagine if you were a major official of a political party, and you started publicly exposing views radically opposed to the party line. If this happened, you would be likely kicked out of the party, and your career in it would certainly suffer serious consequences -- even if you insisted that you were speaking in an unofficial capacity. 

Would you therefore argue that political parties are  also viciously dogmatic, disrespectful of the freedom of speech, etc.? If not, why is it wrong for other voluntary organizations, such as churches, to demand adherence to certain doctrines from those who wish to make careers within them?


----------



## Sepia

Fernando said:


> None of the countries you could have in mind were religious just because somebody found it convenient to promote or enforce the practice of religion.
> 
> So, can I only "falsate" your statement if I find a country where all and every of his dwellers is atheist. Then, I must confess I can not find none.



If that is so, what is your argument with the historical data supposed to tell us?


----------



## Fernando

This is off-topic, but I think the question deserves an answer.



Sepia said:


> If that is so, what is your argument with the historical data supposed to tell us?



As a sweeping generalization:

1) The History (including nowadays) is full of s.o.b.

2) The History (including nowadays) is full of conflicts of interests.

3) (1) + (2) is a bad combination, that many times end in wars as a way of resolving (2). An efficient way, I must say.

4) Many times, the aforementioned s.o.b. include religion as a conflict to be resolved or as an excuse to  resolve other conflicts.

5) In my personal 

It is funny to me the focus on the Crusades as a typical example of the horrors of religious wars. Well, the Crusades stopped in 1291. Westerners stopped to slaughters Muslims (and viceversa) to begin slaughter other Christians. As an example, French and English needed no religious excuse to kill each other from 1100 to 1815 (with short gaps). 

During all 20th century people has killed each other. Could you please name the "religious wars"?


----------



## Sepia

Fernando said:


> This is off-topic, but I think the question deserves an answer.
> 
> 
> 
> As a sweeping generalization:
> 
> 1) The History (including nowadays) is full of s.o.b.
> 
> 2) The History (including nowadays) is full of conflicts of interests.
> 
> 3) (1) + (2) is a bad combination, that many times end in wars as a way of resolving (2). An efficient way, I must say.
> 
> 4) Many times, the aforementioned s.o.b. include religion as a conflict to be resolved or as an excuse to  resolve other conflicts.
> 
> 5) In my personal
> 
> It is funny to me the focus on the Crusades as a typical example of the horrors of religious wars. Well, the Crusades stopped in 1291. Westerners stopped to slaughters Muslims (and viceversa) to begin slaughter other Christians. As an example, French and English needed no religious excuse to kill each other from 1100 to 1815 (with short gaps).
> 
> During all 20th century people has killed each other. Could you please name the "religious wars"?



I did not claim there were any relgiious wars - although there may be some going on right now. I am opposing the argument that atheist nations make wars too - Even though the USSR and Nazi-Germany never used God or Religion as an argument in their politics or in their justification for getting involved in wars, I don't feel we can classify them as atheist nations since I see no indication that the majority of their populations were atheist. 

It is simply a result of modern Western mentality - especially in Europe less in the USA - that religion is no longer such a strong tool in boosting  politician's power. 

The people's (or tribes) of what later became Norway, Denmark and Sweden - basically Christian nations (I think I can call them so because the Church is part of the state structure - had Christianity forced upon them by means of psychology and raw violence,  and had their original culture destroyed because it was convenient to a few individuals who wanted to be rulers of that part of the world. Similar things happened in the Celtic parts of Europe. That has nothing to do with the original pacifist idea of Christianity, but is merely a tool of opression. The 20th century was the century of ideologies, some of which were also abused in struggles for power. We also saw Sadaam Husein switching from ideology to religion. And we saw political parties in the USA switching from ideology to a mixture of ideology and religion as a means of capturing people's minds.


----------



## Cnaeius

Sepia said:


> I did not claim there were any relgiious wars - although there may be some going on right now. I am opposing the argument that atheist nations make wars too - Even though the USSR and Nazi-Germany never used God or Religion as an argument in their politics or in their justification for getting involved in wars, I don't feel we can classify them as atheist nations since I see no indication that the majority of their populations were atheist.


Maybe I am misunderstanding these statements, but the fact that the majority of a nation is religious or atheist or both does not imply that the government of that nation isn't completely atheist (or religious)


----------



## Sepia

Cnaeius said:


> Maybe I am misunderstanding these statements, but the fact that the majority of a nation is religious or atheist or both does not imply that the government of that nation isn't completely atheist (or religious)



Yes, that is basically what I am saying. So the fact - relgious or not by by politics - has nothing to with them making wars or not. Taking the first step to using violence always has to do with the thrill of power, money or imaginary threats. Religion is a well proven but not sole means of either intimidating people or making them support somebody's violent actions.



Athaulf said:


> By analogy, imagine if you were a major official of a political party, and you started publicly exposing views radically opposed to the party line. If this happened, you would be likely kicked out of the party, and your career in it would certainly suffer serious consequences -- even if you insisted that you were speaking in an unofficial capacity.
> 
> Would you therefore argue that political parties are also viciously dogmatic, disrespectful of the freedom of speech, etc.? If not, why is it wrong for other voluntary organizations, such as churches, to demand adherence to certain doctrines from those who wish to make careers within them?



You are right. That also suppors my argument that religious organisations have more to do with politics or business than with spirituality. 

Political parties even democratic countries may in some ways seem dogmatic. However, they arrive at their decisions through debate and by democratic decisions down to the level where every party member can express an oponion and has a vote. As a church member in any of the major Christian churches you have no influence on the content of the religion or how it is to be interpreted. Churches are not democratic organisations.


----------



## cherine

*Quick reminder to all:*
*This is the topic of this thread:*



stanley said:


> I'm curious whether most of the people from your home country believe in God or not.


*Religion as a reason for war or for peace is not.*

*Further off-topic posts will be deleted.*

*Thank you all.*


----------



## alexacohen

I'm sorry. But I don't think your question can be answered. 
Faith cannot be measured; if you asked every Spaniard in Spain the question "Do you believe in God?" I'm sure a huge majority would say "yes, I do", without questioning at all what the question really means.
Faith is much more than going to Church, whatever Church may be, or reciting prayers that have long lost their meaning.
Faith is a personal commitment.


----------



## tvdxer

stanley said:


> I'm curious whether most of the people from your home country believe in God or not. In Germany pretty much nobody attends church on Sunday. ( About 5 % of the population ) I don't know a lot of people in my age who believe in god. Mostly the older people, especially the ones who were raised after the war and during the war got a deep faith in god. Another reason might also be that many of the older people don't have a lot of relatives any more which makes them go to church because they are very lonely.
> What do you think?



Eurobarometer statistics (2005):

47% of Germans "believe there is a God" (compared to 81% of Greeks, 74% of Italians, 54% of Austrians, 38% of Brits, and 23% of Swedes)

25% of Germans "believe there is some sort of spirit of life force"

25% of Germans "do not believe there is a God"

Belief is considerably higher in the Western portion of the country than the East, which has a non-believing majority.  This is interesting; the Poles kept their faith during the communist oppression, why didn't the Germans?

===

In the U.S., religious belief remains very strong throughout the society, with 90% of adults (96% of black adults, 84% of 18-24s) believing in God, 84% believing in the "survival of the soul after death", 82% in heaven, 69% in hell, 68% in the devil, and 27% in reincarnation (!). (source).  Indeed, being an atheist makes you a bit odd here.

Church attendance is much lower, not surprisingly, but still rather strong for a wealthy, developed country.  Around 40% of Americans report attending church, though other surveys have demonstrated lower percentages (people tend to over-report).  Church attendance varies vastly across the country; 

I am 21 years old and attend a Catholic church (and Catholics report lower mass attendance rates than other religious groups, which is surprising since the church considers missing Sunday mass a mortal sin), and I can say that attendance is very strong among the 65+ group, decent among adults with families (including their children), and rather poor for those in the 18 - 30 group. 

On Facebook (the American equivalent of StudiVZ), many my age list "God" under their interests, and some have added a "Daily bible verse" application to their profile page.  My university has a few fairly strong Christian organizations.


----------



## Sepia

tvdxer said:


> Eurobarometer statistics (2005):
> 
> ...
> 
> Belief is considerably higher in the Western portion of the country than the East, which has a non-believing majority.  This is interesting; the Poles kept their faith during the communist oppression, why didn't the Germans?
> 
> ...
> 
> ..



I have already been reprimanded for not staying on-topic - possibly because it is hard to understand that the real topic of this thread can hardly be discussed without also hitting sub-topics like

"religion as a political instrument". 

But if someone opens such a thread I'll comment on it.

---

The statistics concerning the USA are interesting - any supplementary demographic info to that? 
We probably all think the people in the socalled "Bible Belt" are an important factor here - but are they really?


----------



## CarolMamkny

People in my country have lost faith in the Catholic Church as an institution but still are very religious. I think we, as Colombians, need to rely on something such as religion to get through all the stuff that goes on in our country.


----------



## Outsider

For interesting statistics -- and cautions about them -- concerning religiosity in the United States, a good site is Religious Tolerance.


----------



## Sepia

Outsider said:


> For interesting statistics -- and cautions about them -- concerning religiosity in the United States, a good site is Religious Tolerance.




Very interesting -

the term "social desirability bias" was new to me. That, inevitably, brings us back to the question why people in certain nations feel it is that socially desirable to be a churchgoer, that they would lie about it?


----------



## Fernando

People lie in polls on a daily basis.

As a matter of fact, in Spain there are some (mainstream) political parties that are systematically under-represented in polls. As a matter of fact, pollsters know that deviation and systematically give more "votes" to those parties (based on "indirect" questions). It is the only way to get close(r) to the final results.

As a matter of fact, at least in Spain, it is not "fashionable" to be a believer. So, many people which are religious would simply say they believe "in a spiritual Being", which is not more than a "centrist" nosense. 

I assume in other countries is just the opposite: the atheist guy is the weirdo (to say the least).

On a side note, I find interesting that I have never been asked in any kind of poll (on politics, religion,... nothing). Are the pollsters lying or focusing on a very particular kind of people?


----------



## Outsider

Fernando said:


> On a side note, I find interesting that I have never been asked in any kind of poll (on politics, religion,... nothing). Are the pollsters lying or focusing on a very particular kind of people?


They're focusing on a comparatively _small_ sample of people. Being polled is a bit like winning the lottery. How many times have you done that? 

I don't disagree with your other objections. Asking people about their religious convictions and practices is always delicate. But the website I linked to discusses that in some of its pages.


----------



## ernest_

Fernando said:


> As a matter of fact, at least in Spain, it is not "fashionable" to be a believer. So, many people which are religious would simply say they believe "in a spiritual Being", which is not more than a "centrist" nosense.



What is not fashionable is to be a Christian. Other religions or beliefs do not have this problem, and I can tell you this first-hand.  Most people when asked will tell you they are not religious, and by that they mean that they do not believe in god ("Jehova-1") as portrayed in the major Western religions, which is something I can understand, because who would want to believe in such a god? But that does not mean that they do not have religious beliefs, in fact the more bizarre and sophisticated your beliefs are the more chances you have when it comes to chatting-up. Having your own superstition/religion is seen as an indication of independence and wisdom and women love it.


----------



## Fernando

Agreed.



ernest_ said:


> and women love it.



I begin to understand my (lack of) success with women.


----------



## argentina84

ernest_ said:


> In fact the more bizarre and sophisticated your beliefs are the more chances you have when it comes to *chatting-up.* Having your own superstition/religion is seen as an indication of independence and wisdom and women love it.


 
Sorry, but what does *"chatting-up"* mean in this context? Does it mean *"sweet talk"?* 

Thanks!


----------



## ernest_

argentina84 said:


> Sorry, but what does *"chatting-up"* mean in this context? Does it mean *"sweet talk"?*



I don't know sweet talk, but I suppose it is the same thing - the act of talking to a member of the opposite sex (or the same sex, these days everything is possible ) in order to persuade them to have some sort of relationship wi you. More precisely a sexual one. I think the actual word is chat-up, not chatting-up.


----------



## argentina84

Yes, it's the same! Thanks!


----------



## Sepia

Fernando said:


> On a side note, I find interesting that I have never been asked in any kind of poll (on politics, religion,... nothing). Are the pollsters lying or focusing on a very particular kind of people?



No. If they are serious they pick people by random, but from different areas, gender and social levels to have a mixture which demographically is similar to that of the population as such. 

Statistically you can wait a long time before someone knocks your door. My dad had it happen only twice in his life. 
---
But basically you are saying that it would probably feel more socially acceptable to people in Spain to say they do not believe in God - wheras it could be the other way around in the USA.

In a different post somebody said that lots of people (in Spain) would reflectively confirm believing in (the Bible-)God without really giving it any thought what they really mean by this. Who do you think is right?


----------

