"no, I'm actually an athiest"

Mark200

Ush1 wrote: »

Missionary: Do you believe in God?

Starving African: No.

Missionary: You want this sandwich though right? I'll ask you again....

If you're suggesting that they're bribed into saying they believe God then I don't believe that at all. In fact, by and large it's poorer countries that are more religious... and as countries become more wealthy, their dependence on a belief in a supernatural power diminishes.

Edit - Sorry didn't read the posts before, I assumed you were just talking about religion in general... but you were talking about the growth. Still don't think they are bribed though

Sam Vimes

An interesting graph that compares religion of upbringing to current religion:

http://secularnewsdaily.s3.amazonaws.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Religion-Weighted-Flow.jpg

The notable thing is that the only group to have significant gains is atheism

And changing from one religion to another is pretty rare

Ush1

Mark200 wrote: »

If you're suggesting that they're bribed into saying they believe God then I don't believe that at all. In fact, by and large it's poorer countries that are more religious... and as countries become more wealthy, their dependence on a belief in a supernatural power diminishes.

Poorer countries are a ripe ground for religion. Desperation, lack of education etc....

What about my post disputed that?

Stercus Accidit

Sam Vimes wrote: »

An interesting graph that compares religion of upbringing to current religion:

http://secularnewsdaily.s3.amazonaws.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Religion-Weighted-Flow.jpg

The notable thing is that the only group to have significant gains is atheism

And changing from one religion to another is pretty rare

Atheism, best religion in the world :pac:

Sam Vimes

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Atheism, best religion in the world :pac:

Oh you've gone and done it now


/waits for the wrath :pac:

philologos

Mark200 wrote: »

Well if you're just talking about Christianity, it's interesting to note that the % of Christians in the world is actually falling.

Not true. Outside of Europe, North America and Australia it's growing. 15,000 people taking this decline into account become Christians daily.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity#Demographics

mloc

Jakkass wrote: »

Not true. Outside of Europe, North America and Australia it's growing. 15,000 people taking this decline into account become Christians daily.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity#Demographics

Interesting; so in Africa, people move from Islam to Christianity. I can see why. Less limb chopping, random stonings and a bit more freedom, whilst still retaining ludicrous explanations for all those things they never managed to understand.

Win/win.

philologos

I need to retract a statement I made earlier. I'm wrong on this. Most growth isn't by conversion, but a significantly higher percentile of any other major world religions is evidenced in Christianity over Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, or Buddhism.

Mark200

Jakkass wrote: »

Not true. Outside of Europe, North America and Australia it's growing. 15,000 people taking this decline into account become Christians daily.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity#Demographics

You'll see in my post that I said "%". Of course there are going to be more Christians every day, but if the rate of growth of Christianity is slower than the rate of growth of the World population then I am correct in saying that the % of Christians in the World is falling.

philologos

strobe wrote: »

If you remove Africa from consideration is that still the case Jakkass?

Africa is largely Christianised. From what I've heard Central Asia, and the Far East are two regions of much growth. South Korea and China are two in the Far East that I've heard about quite a bit, and Kazakhstan, and Tajikistan in the case of Central Asia.

There's also quite a bit going on in the Middle East but information is limited due to the dangers involved in working in those regions.

Mark200, that link also contains the percentage gain to be made by Christianity. By 2050 it will be 34.3% of the worlds population by these estimates. That's an increase over 33% at present. Meaning, it is a gain in percentage as well as in population.

Osgoodisgood

Jakkass wrote: »

This is awful reasoning.
1) The Bible is a bronze age document :pac:
2) We take inspiration from many sources older than this such as Aristotle & Plato, hugely influential in philosophy & European culture.
3) Age does not dictate merit.
4) Christianity has influenced Europe positively in its development.

You are still not getting it.
The thinking behind the earlier statements was what I was criticising. When I said "Stone Age", I meant "Thick, uneducated, unenlightened" and possibly "dumbo bumbo". That not withstanding your comment 4) took some nerve in light of the myriad comments earlier concerning child molestation.

Anyone does this. I do this, you do this. We determine merit in terms of responding.

[/QUOTE]

I was discussing the credibility of people and used RD as an example of someone who doesn't wish to elevate the credibility of morons such as The Croco-duck Twins by granting them the favour and exposure that a public debate will lend.

Osgoodisgood

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Of course every time this point is put to you you miss the point in exactly the same way by conflating credibility with merit as if you haven't been corrected dozens of times before so it's a good thing you have me on ignore so we don't have to go through the usual pedantry. Perhaps Osgoodisgood would like to put it to you if he/she is brave/bored enough

I (he) was bored enough. I took a new tack and have much hope that Jakkass will now completely concur with my view that while Mr Christ may indeed have had the very best of intentions and may have made some quite inspirational speeches, the bona fides of the entire religious position are heavily compromised by a lack of credibilty brought about by a poverty of supporting data and by the dubious representation of lunatics who deny science in order to stay upright in their game of Biblical Twister.

philologos

It is the notion of "correction", and that I am actually supposed to think my views absolutely wrong that is wholly absurd, particularly in dealing with a question that is unverifiable. How can I be corrected? Rather all that can happen is that I hear your viewpoint, one which I reject due to how much sense it actually makes.

I won't completely concur that the Gospel lacks credibility, precisely because I've put my full trust in it, and I've invested a good deal of my time for it. Personally, I believe the evidence is in favour of Christianity. That's why I am a Christian.

As for denying science? - Hm. I don't believe anyone has to do this. This is largely why I am a theistic evolutionist.

philologos

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

You are still not getting it.
The thinking behind the earlier statements was what I was criticising. When I said "Stone Age", I meant "Thick, uneducated, unenlightened" and possibly "dumbo bumbo". That not withstanding your comment 4) took some nerve in light of the myriad comments earlier concerning child molestation.

I don't deny that there have been a minority of moments when man has corrupted Christianity, turning away from Christ's intention for their own selfish aims.

The problem as I would see it here, is man, not Christianity.

When Christian belief has been genuinely executed in the world, it has produced amazing results.

When I refer to Christianity, I'm referring to it as a whole. All denominations and creeds involved in it.

As for Stone Age, one is entitled to hold this view. Evidentially, a lot of us in larger society / in the world can't and don't agree with you.

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

I was discussing the credibility of people and used RD as an example of someone who doesn't wish to elevate the credibility of morons such as The Croco-duck Twins by granting them the favour and exposure that a public debate will lend.

OK. Significance to current discussion?

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

It is the notion of "correction", and that I am actually supposed to think my views absolutely wrong that is wholly absurd, particularly in dealing with a question that is unverifiable. How can I be corrected? Rather all that can happen is that I hear your viewpoint, one which I reject due to how much sense it actually makes.

You can be corrected if you misunderstand someone's point. If someone makes a point about credibility and you respond by talking about merit you have missed their point. You have not "rejected a viewpoint", you have misunderstood it and responded in a way that does not address their point


But, again, this is also something you have been corrected on many times, missing the point by conflating someone saying you've missed their point with saying they disagree with you, and I'm on the ignore list so Osgoodisgood might want to repeat this

coffee_cake

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You can be corrected if you misunderstand someone's point. If someone makes a point about credibility and you respond by talking about merit you have missed their point. You have not "rejected a viewpoint", you have misunderstood it and responded in a way that does not address their point


But, again, this is also something you have been corrected on many times, missing the point by conflating someone saying you've missed their point with saying they disagree with you, and I'm on the ignore list so Osgoodisgood might want to repeat this

Jakass in "misunderstanding a post" shocker :eek: News at 11!

He can see a quoted post of yours though, right?

Greentopia

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden#Religion

This is rather late but I've not been online the past few days so sorry for this but just wanted to say thank's for that info.
I moved to Gothenburg in 94 and I hadn't realised the law was changed there. Godd news! the more separation of church and state in all countries the better IMO
Can't believe this thread was still going today

Greentopia

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Greentopia said in his/her post that every Swedish person is by default Lutheran although you can opt out persumably once old enough to make the choice.

I know this is late coming -see previous post- (damn work interfering with my intertube surfing :mad::D) and it's prolly irrelevant now, but just wanted to say in regards to your post: I was just going on the information I was given in 94 when I moved to Sweden which was accurate at the time and hadn't realised the law had been updated, but mea culpa anyway.
Oh and I'm a she BTW (you said he/she about me in one of your posts)

Mr. Loverman

Jakkass do you ever go from door to door telling people about Jesus or hand out religious flyers/that sort of thing to people?

philologos

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

Jakkass do you ever go from door to door telling people about Jesus or hand out religious flyers/that sort of thing to people?

1. I've not done door to door.
2. I have flyered on my university campus, for events that the Christian Union holds. I also flyered while serving on a mission team in the UK last summer.

If you have any specific questions PM me.