Christians are leaving the faith in droves and the trend isn't slowing down

[Binkie The Clown]

An extensive study done by the Pew Research Center has yielded some fascinating information regarding the trajectory of world religions over the next four decades.

As of 2010, Christianity was the dominant world religion with roughly 2.2 billion adherents and Muslim's were second with about 1.6 billion adherents. If current demographic trends continue however, Islam is expected to catch up to Christianity midway through the 21st century.

Furthermore, people are leaving Christianity in droves. About 106 million Christians are expected to switch affiliation from 2010 to 2050 while only about 40 million people are expected to enter Christianity. The religiously unaffiliated (athiests, agnostics) are expected to see the largest net gains from switching, adding more than 61 million followers.

Business Insider by way of Yahoo News

[nil desperandum]

1. Interestingly,

I am a non-believer, but I don't consider myself to be "following" atheism...

I just don't go to church and I just don't believe there's a god. It's not like I attend meetings to discuss atheism...I write some snarky stuff here on a website from time to time...but I'm no more committed to atheism than god..it's more a non-factor.

Of course we do get some folks thinking they need to write something religious into law from time to time.

Then I usually contact my legislators with my concerns which they promptly ignore...and I continue not believing...

[Rolando]

3. After centuries of horrors of the Christian church,

some are leaving. Good for them. But not enough of them are leaving. And how many Jews are leaving the faith? And Muslims?

[cbayer]

5. Other than a rather significant increase in Muslims, you can expect things to stay

just about the same.

No surprise there.

[yeoman6987]

51. Yes in 2050 I will be 89

I imagine the majority of us on here will be Senior Citizen if not worse... Who knows what will happen.

[Yorktown]

94. and centuries of horrors of Islam, continuing

Reality check: the Christian Curch isn't much of a menace anymore.

The Mayan 'Sun Cult' virus (with its charming human sacrifices) has been eradicated.

the Christian virus has mutated to milder forms (save some HIV and stem cells problems)

The most dangerous virus left standing is Islam.

[Rolando]

107. Probably right,

but it's not politically correct for us to talk like this.

[pretzel4gore]

6. it took an entire universe 15 billion years to produce

ONE factual intelligence. ONE! Only ONE. Some argue there might be more, millions, or even just a dozen, but we still, after 4 generations haven't seen/heard anything via radiowaves. Time is eternal, so is it possible that only ONE intelligence(?) The human intell. isn't all that extraordinary, even common crows recognise dangerous faces in a crowd, for example, and there's a video of a turtle helping another turtle who had gotten fipped over on its back- high intelligence by any measure! A termite colony is an 'intelligence' The point is it's alll connected, and only humanity mixes everything up be making up gods who are then blamed/credited for randon circumstance!

[cleanhippie]

14. That's because there's nothing to "follow" regarding atheism.

It's nothing more than the lack or absence of belief in a god.

What's more interesting is the fact that theists seem almost unable to accept atheism for what it is. They need it to be more than just lack of belief, they need it to be be something that is "followed" in order to rationalize their own beliefs, which when examined closely, are typically absurd.

[cbayer]

2. This data has been extensively reported here and this analysis of it is some of the worst

journalism about this that I have seen.

The religious switching data looks entirely inconsistent with the overall change in numbers because it is measuring something completely different.

As one can see from the original PEW report, the percentage of those who are christian is predicted to stay stable and the absolute number predicted to increase.

Also in the study is the prediction that both the percentage and absolute number of those that define themselves as unaffiliated will decrease.

While it is predicted that there will be a positive change among those that switch from a religion to unaffiliated and a negative change of those that switch from christian to something else, this doesn't impact the overall numbers at all. Switching is a relatively minor and complex factor which doesn't impact much on the absolute numbers.

The headline is not just inflammatory, it really has no basis in reality.

The bottom line is that the numbers are going to change, but that will be primarily due to birthrates.

[jonno99]

4. Thanks n/t

[trotsky]

8. You do realize that repeating your claim doesn't make it true, right?

I think you are completely confused about this data, but more importantly very angry because it seems to indicate something you desperately don't want to be true.

[cleanhippie]

15. " ...it seems to indicate something you desperately don't want to be true."

Hits nail on head.

[skepticscott]

25. And what irony, for someone who on a daily basis

posts absolute nonsense, and who never acknowledges it, despite having her posts utterly discredited with facts, to all of a sudden pretend to become a skeptical thinker, who examines things with a critical eyes and demands evidence. Too rich.

[guillaumeb]

30. Someone IS confused here. With respect, I do not think it is cbayer.

Also from the report:
"Here are other chief findings from the report:

1. Islam will grow faster than any other religion over the next 40 years.

2. The number of Muslims will equal the number of Christians around the world by 2050.

3. Atheists, agnostics and other people who do not affiliate with any religion – though increasing in countries such as the United States and France – will make up a declining share of the world’s total population."

My comment:
I only listed the first three, but your assertion is unsupported by the report. Unaffiliated (atheist and agnostic) people will decline from approximately 14% of the population to 11% of the population. That would indicate to me that the theists are winning, if that is the term you prefer, the battle. If the unaffiliated side is in decline that represents the opposite of what you are reading into the survey.

[trotsky]

64. Thanks for your opinion!

You are certainly entitled to believe whatever you want. Take care.

[guillaumeb]

87. I have no opinion on the study.

But when you claim that the study shows one thing, when it actually shows the opposite, I would challenge that claim.

[trotsky]

96. Again, thanks for your opinion on what the study says!

It is truly appreciated.

[gcomeau]

91. No, it's her. And also you.

All the stats you just cited are due not to people entering or leaving Islam or Christianity but purely from *population growth*.

As in, Christians and Muslims are projected to have lots and lots of babies. And then those babies (rather questionably imo) will automatically be called Christians and Muslims too. (Because you know, religion is genetically inherited.)


That is a completely seperate consideration from the rate at which grown adults make their own decisions about whether to stay Christians or "leave in droves".

[guillaumeb]

92. The stats were cited by Pew Research.

I do not work for Pew, nor do I benefit if the population of believers grows or diminishes. When people decide to convert from one religion to another, or leave the faith community completely, that is a personal decision. But the phrase "leave in droves" has no scientific validity. It is an editorial comment that may show some bias on the part of the writer. Unless, of course, you can show me a scientific definition of "droves".

Plus, as to babies being automatically counted as Christians or Muslims, are babies born to non-believers "counted" as non-believers? Is there no population growth among non-believers?

Can we not simply agree that some people are believers and some are non-believers? Does it really matter what exact percentage of people belong to each group? In my view, live and let live is the best choice. I have never personally tried to convince or convert anyone to my beliefs and I expect the same courtesy in return.

[gcomeau]

93. So you're now abandoning all quantitative objections...

...to the fact that the study did indeed clearly state that people were leaving Chistianity by the millions in current trends and are going rest your argument instead on nitpicking the proper application of the descriptive term "droves"?

What if they'd said " lots" were leaving? Or how about "many"? Would you have demanded a scientific definition of those terms as well?

[guillaumeb]

97. All three terms are vague.

Using the term "droves" or lots, or many, is not precise. Merely stating that many people are turning away from Christianity does not lead to the conclusion that all of these people are now identifying as atheists. A certain percentage of these people are identifying as non-believers, but what percentage are converting to another faith based system?

Looking at the study, especially the percentages of people identifying as non-believers, non-believers are projected to represent a lesser percentage of total population in 2050 than they are today. An alternative headline for this post could have been that non-belief is withering away and is projected to disappear at a certain point.

Shall we argue that point, or should we instead accept that some people are believers, some are not?

The only argument I have is with some few at DU who clearly feel that non-belief is the only logical conclusion for intelligent people. The corollary to this logical fallacy is that only idiots can have religious faith. For these intolerant few, religious thinkers are replaced by non-believers like Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan.

While both are clearly intelligent and well qualified to speak IN THEIR FIELD, they have no special expertise or insight anywhere else. So why some here would accept their speaking on faith as somehow authoritative escapes me. Perhaps, being a person of faith, I am not intelligent enough to appreciate the keenness of their insights.

[gcomeau]

98. Who gives a crap if they're vague?

As applied to *tens of millions of people* they're all entirely appropriate.

The exact numbers were also included so you can't claim nobody understood *exactly*what any of those terms would actually mean in terms of numbers, all you're doing here is desperately casting around for any distracting little detail to focus on rather than the central point. Mass net migration of people out of Christianity once they're grown and able to make an informed decision.

An alternative headline for this post could have been that non-belief is withering away and is projected to disappear at a certain point.

Only if you were so clueless about what percentages mean in terms of a growing overall population that you thought that statement was accurate. Which admittedly many people would be. But they'd still be wrong... whereas the original description of the study findings was in fact correct.

[guillaumeb]

99. Regardless of a growing population,

for anyone to attempt to draw a conclusion that non-belief is "replacing" belief, the number of non-believers expressed as a percentage of the population should be increasing, not decreasing. Unless you have some proof that believers are having children at far higher rates than non-believers your conclusion lacks merit.

As to my second point, about tendencies among some few at DU to disparage the intelligence of believers, your statement regarding:
" Mass net migration of people out of Christianity once they're grown and able to make an informed decision."
somewhat speaks to my point. Are you implying that only non-believers have made an informed decision, and that all believers are stuck in irrational fantasy?

Are there studies that show a positive correlation between intelligence and atheism? If so, please provide links so that I can move from the depths of faith fantasy to the clear light of atheistic enlightenment.

[gcomeau]

100. As already explained to you.

The projection of increased percentage of believers is based SOLELY on "we project believers will have more babies than non believers"



As the OP was clearly about who was winning the battle of ideas, and not the battle of who-can-do-the-better-job-irresponsibly-making-the-overpopulation-problem-worse, constantly referring to it as if it somehow refutes the point the OP was making is clueless.

Are there studies that show a positive correlation between intelligence and atheism? If so, please provide links so that I can move from the depths of faith fantasy to the clear light of atheistic enlightenment?

Only almost every study ever conducted on the matter of correlations between belief and intelligence/education. Here's a nice summary analysis of the results of 63 such studies:

http://psr.sagepub.com/content/17/4/325

"A meta-analysis of 63 studies showed a significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity. The association was stronger for college students and the general population than for participants younger than college age; it was also stronger for religious beliefs than religious behavior. For college students and the general population, means of weighted and unweighted correlations between intelligence and the strength of religious beliefs ranged from −.20 to −.25 (mean r = −.24). Three possible interpretations were discussed. First, intelligent people are less likely to conform and, thus, are more likely to resist religious dogma. Second, intelligent people tend to adopt an analytic (as opposed to intuitive) thinking style, which has been shown to undermine religious beliefs. Third, several functions of religiosity, including compensatory control, self-regulation, self-enhancement, and secure attachment, are also conferred by intelligence. Intelligent people may therefore have less need for religious beliefs and practices."

[guillaumeb]

101. some caveats

This meta-analysis only targets analytic intelligence, which surely is not the full measure of human intelligence despite the ongoing debate about how to define the rest of it. Also, although the review encompasses all studies conducted from 1928 to 2012, it only does so for studies written in the English language (two foreign language studies were considered only because a translation was available). The authors believe there are similar studies conducted in Japan and Latin America, but they did not have the time or resources to include them.

Zuckerman also warns that, despite there being thousands of participants overall, ranging among all ages, almost all of them belong to Western society. More than 87 percent of the participants were from the US, the UK, and Canada. So after controlling for other factors, they can only confidently show strong negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity among American Protestants. For Catholicism and Judaism, the correlation may be less negative.

There are some complications to the explanations too. For example, the non-conformist theory of atheism cannot apply to societies where the majority are atheists, such as Scandinavian countries. The possible explanations are also currently just that—possible. They need to be empirically studied.

Finally, not all studies reviewed are of equal quality, and some of them have been criticized by other researchers. But that is exactly why meta-analyses are performed. They help overcome limitations of sample size, poor data, and questionable analyses of individual studies.

As always, the word “correlation” is important. It hasn’t been shown that higher intelligence causes someone to be less religious. So, it wouldn’t be right to call someone a dimwit just because of their religious beliefs. Unless, of course, you are an ancient playwright looking to provoke your audience.

[gcomeau]

102. If you're going to plagiarize your *entire* reply...

...at least attribute it. Unless of course your name is Akshat Rathi?

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/08/11/new-meta-analysis-checks-the-correlation-between-intelligence-and-faith/

You just copied and pasted the entire "Give me the caveats" section.



Would you care to offer any of your own thoughts on the meta analysis, or did you even bother to read it?

That aside, those caveats are exactly that... caveats. Stipulations clarifying the bounds of the study(ies). They do not change the fact that over and over and over and over when this is studied the correlation tends to go strongly in one direction. You asked, I provided.

[guillaumeb]

105. I forgot to attach the link. That is my fault.

That is what happens when I try to multitask. Multiple errors.

And you did provide. As to your words: "the correlation tends to go strongly in one direction." I have not looked at any of the studies but I read the short analysis at the page cited. Some questions do arise though.

When the author writes:
"Out of 63 studies, 53 showed a negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity, while 10 showed a positive one. Significant negative correlations were seen in 35 studies, whereas only two studies showed significant positive correlations."

My question is:
how does the correlation translate? Is this a comparison of average intelligence, based on test scores? Do non-believers score a certain % higher and does the % remain fairly consistent over all the studies?

The author speaks of:
"In the various studies being examined, analytic intelligence has been measured in many different ways, including GPA (grade point average), UEE (university entrance exams), Mensa membership, and Intelligence Quotient (IQ) tests, among others."

my question:

What are the numbers? What difference is there?

Again, the author notes:
"What makes these results remarkable is not just that these gifted folks were less religious, something that is seen among elite scientists as well, but that 60 percent of the Termites reported receiving “very strict” or “considerable” religious training while 33 percent received little training. Thus, almost all of the gifted Termites grew up to be less religious."

my question:
could this (non-belief)be a reaction to "very strict" religious training?

[gcomeau]

11. If you think it's something to trumpet...

...that overall numbers of Christians and Muslims are expected to increase not through people converting to the ideology because coherent argument or compelling evidence has inspired them to adopt those positions but rather through nothing more than them breeding like rabbits and having lots and lots of babies, which is what you are talking about when you speak about those numbers in the report, well... maybe you want to think that one over.



I'd say the rates of conversion of thinking adults was a significantly more relevant metric than how many kids each group can make their women turn out. But I suppose if you really need something kinda positive sounding to cling to "we're better than atheists at making the overpopulation problem worse! Yay!" is a way to go...

[cbayer]

12. Trumpet? Where in the world am I trumpeting anything?

I'm just taking this guys analysis apart because it is really, really bad.

Why people stay in a religion, leave a religion, change their religion, go from belief to non-beleif and vice versa is highly complex.

All I said is that the changes that are predicted appear to be primarily due to predicted birthrates.

No one said anything about any group being better, but if you want to use the data to malign some people, go for it.

[gcomeau]

16. The analysis isn't in any way bad.

You're upset he's focusing on the conversion numbers instead of the overall population numbers. But his analysis of the conversion numbers is dead on.

And it is pretty obvious why the focus being on the conversion numbers instead of the overall population numbers has you riled up.

[trotsky]

17. Some folks are very afraid of the status quo changing.

But the kicker is, it already has - quite drastically. We've never before (in recorded history, at least) had so many people who either don't associate or identify with a particular religion, or just outright admit they don't believe in gods.

[cbayer]

18. The analysis is terrible. Let's just start with the fact that he is posting projections as fact.

It doesn't get much worse than that. But he's an intern, just out of college and has a lot to learn, so I'm willing to cut him some slack.

I'm not upset at all, but why don't you tell me why the focus of his analysis has me all "riled up"?

You just can't help making things personal, can you? I suspect you would get a whole lot more interaction if you could refrain from doing that. You are obviously intelligent, articulate and often have some good points to make.

[trotsky]

21. "You just can't help making things personal"

Which is of course you making things personal. Oh wait, that's right, there are different rules for you.

Never mind.

[gcomeau]

23. No, he's posting projections as projections.

That's what saying things like, to quote, "If current demographic trends continue however..." means. See, that's stating it's a projection.

You just can't help making things personal, can you?

And you just can't help taking any criticism of any argument you make AS personal, can you?

[cbayer]

24. Okey, dokey.

I regret this every single time, but keep hoping for a better outcome. That's the definition of insanity, right?

You have a nice night now.

[beam me up scottie]

29. Yes you do.

And I know the real reason why.

Hint: it has nothing to do with gcomeau's "personal" attacks on you.

[beam me up scottie]

31. Once again, gcomeau...

[gcomeau]

33. Not sure applause is warranted here...

I mean, pointing out that the article writer explicitly stating these were projections meant he was presenting them as projections didn't exactly take a brilliant piece of argument.

And the whole "take every criticism as a personal attack" angle is pretty self evident. I mean, just yesterday it was this:

"Please try not to resort to making this personal and suggest that I haven't looked very hard or am constructing straw men."

...because obviously, pointing out that someone is committing a logical fallacy or has not performed a rigorous search of the available subject material is a personal attack...

[beam me up scottie]

36. Oh it is.

Many of us have been pointing out cbayer's penchant for creating straw men and hypocrisy for years with little success. The ability to do so efficiently takes patience and skill.

Eventually you will be put on ignore like the rest of us, but until then it is a pleasure to watch you work.

[trotsky]

70. The applause is definitely warranted.

As bmus noted, you'll probably find yourself on her ignore list soon, especially if you continue to stand your ground in the face of her assault.

I'm not sure why some folks are so intent on making this group into an echo chamber, but there are lots of us trying to resist it. Thank you for helping.

[Act_of_Reparation]

69. "And you just can't help taking any criticism of any argument you make AS personal, can you?"

You noticed that too, eh?

[cbayer]

75. Ah, you're just jealous that you don't have a fan club like I do.

[trotsky]

79. If you consider a (growing) group of people whom you've mischaracterized, shamed, and insulted...

your "fan club," that's very weird.

[juxtaposed]

106. jumping ship like rats docking in singapore

[rug]

7. It's been shrinking for centuries.

Hasn't it?

[cbayer]

9. Yeah, 2,000 years, more or less.

[rug]

10. It's on its last legs!

Again.

[cbayer]

13. Well, if we can just get rid of it, this whole global warming thing is going to clear right up.

[rug]

32. Re;igion poisons everything!

[cbayer]

37. Together we can find a cure.

[hrmjustin]

19. I will never leave the faith.

I have had my ups and downs with it but I have never and I hope I never do lose my faith.

[cbayer]

20. How can you say that with such certainty, justin?

I don't think I could ever take that decisive a position on something with so many unanswered questions.

Buy maybe that is why I lack belief and faith.

[hrmjustin]

22. Nothing is 100 percent certain but I believe I will live out my days in my faith.

[Binkie The Clown]

26. What are saying is

that right now, at this moment, you have reached the pinnacle of your wisdom and judgement. You are as wise right now as you will ever be. You cannot look forward to any improvement on those fronts from the rest of your life. I's all downhill from here.

[hrmjustin]

27. No I never said that and that is a huge reach on your part.

[Binkie The Clown]

34. So you might become wiser and change your mind?

That's a contradiction. Either you will never change your mind because you will never be any wiser, or you may become wiser and may change your mind.

You simply can't have it both ways.

What you cannot logically say is that you may become wiser but even if you do you will not change your mind, because that presumes that you are able to know what your wiser future self will believe or not believe, and to know that you have to be, right now, as wise as your future wiser self will be. If you know now what your wiser future self will know, then you are as wise now as you will be in the future, which implies you didn't get any wiser at all.

[hrmjustin]

35. You can be a person of faith and become wiser.

[Binkie The Clown]

41. Yes that is true.

Here are all the valid logical possibilities:

1. You become wiser and remain a person of faith. (your favorite outcome)
2. You become wiser and lose your faith.
3. You do not become any wiser and remain a person of faith.
4. You do not become any wiser and lose your faith.

What you are saying is that because number 1 is possible, it is inevitable. You CANNOT know that in advance.

What you can say is that right now your faith is strong, and that right now you believe that you will never lose your faith, you simply cannot know that this is true. You can only believe that it is true.

What I am saying is that there are four possibilities, and all four possibilities are possible. What you seem to be saying is that of the four possibilities only one is possible. That is not logically defensible.

You cannot simply pick your one favorite future outcome from the list of possible futures and because your favorite outcome is possible, claim that for me to point out one of the other possibilities is wrong.

It is possible that you become wiser and still keep your faith. I will never dispute the simple fact that this is possible.

But in the interest of accuracy, I can't simply stop there. I must continue:

It is possible that you become wiser and lose your faith. I will never dispute the simple fact that this is possible.

It is possible that you do not become wiser and still keep your faith. I will never dispute the simple fact that this is possible.

It is possible that you do not become wiser and lose your faith. I will never dispute the simple fact that this is possible.


I know true believers prefer to pretend certainty, but life is uncertain. You must accept that, or live in la-la land believing that only your one preferred outcome will ever come to pass.

[hrmjustin]

42. I hope to become wiser and keep my faith.

[Binkie The Clown]

45. I hope you become wiser,

and decide whatever your wiser self thinks best.

[cbayer]

38. Of course you can become wiser and not change your mind.

One might become wiser and become even more convinced that they are in the right position.

This is just silly. Do you think you might become a believer at some point?

[Binkie The Clown]

40. Of course.

You CAN become wiser and not change your mind. But what you CANNOT say is that you can become wiser and NEVER change your mind. You'd have to be wiser than you are now to say that, so to say that implies you are now as wise as you will ever be.

[cbayer]

44. Let's break this down.

This is what justin said:

I will never leave the faith. I have had my ups and downs with it but I have never and I hope I never do lose my faith.

He made a definitive statement, then backed away from it with a softer statement about hope.
Logically: I will always be A. I have never not been A, despite some ups and downs. I hope I am always A.

You then told him what he was saying, even though it bore no resemblance whatsoever to what he actually said:

What are saying is that right now, at this moment, you have reached the pinnacle of your wisdom and judgement. You are as wise right now as you will ever be. You cannot look forward to any improvement on those fronts from the rest of your life. I's all downhill from here.

If I said the following:

I will never leave my husband. I have had my ups and downs with him but I have never left him and I hope I never do.

Would it be logical for you to respond to me by saying that what I am really saying is that I have reached the pinnacle of my wisdom and judgement, that I can not look forward to any improvement on those fronts for the rest of my life and it's all downhill from here? All because I express faith in my beliefs about my relationship with my husband?

The point you don't get here is the point about beliefs and faith and what you exhibit is the spectacular fail of trying to apply logic to things that have nothing to do with logic.

[Binkie The Clown]

46. Whatever. I bow to your superior wisdom. n/t

[cbayer]

28. Huh? That's ridiculous.

If you were to say that you will never become a believer, could the same conclusions be drawn about you?

I can't relate to justin's certainty about this, but I don't think it's reasonable to draw the conclusions that you do, and particularly not reasonable to say that it's all downhill from here.

Can you explain how you reached these conclusions?

[Binkie The Clown]

39. I will not say "I will never become a believer."

I will say that with what I know right now, and the degree of wisdom and knowledge that I possess right now, I cannot be a believer right now. What new wisdom I may develop, or what knew knowledge I may acquire, I have no way of knowing now.

How I reached the above conclusion is elementary logic:

If person A is wiser that person B, then it is expected that person A will make better choices than person B.

Given that person A is wiser than person B, that implies that person B is less wise than person A.

If a less wise person can predict with certainty the choices that will be made by the wiser person A, then in what sense can person B be said to be less wise? If person B can know ahead of time what person B, the wiser, will choose, then person B is, by definition, equally as wise as person A.

It follows that if person B is truly less wise than person A then person B will be unable to predict with certainty what person A, the wiser, will choose.

The wiser person can know what the less wise person is likely to choose, but the less wise person cannot know what the more wise person will choose.

Therefore, if you were to become more wise with time, then your present self is person B and your future self is person A. To say that your present, less wise, self can know with certainty what your future, more wise, self will choose, is to claim to be as wise as your future, more wise, self. But that is a contradiction which implies that either: A) you will become no wiser, or B) you will become wiser, and therefore cannot know now what your future wiser self will choose.

Did you ever work logic puzzles?

(Forty years ago when I was doing graduate work in computer science, I tutored students in symbolic logic, and I had lots of students who just couldn't get it. There's no shame implied by that. It's just that some people have a talent for music and some people don't, just like some people have a talent for logic and some people don't. Don't be discouraged. Focus on what you DO do well., and most important of all, just be realistic about your limitations and be happy. I know I'll never be a painter or sculptor, but I've found ways to be happy in spite of those limitations. I leave sculpting to the sculptors, just as most people should just leave logic to the logicians.)

[cbayer]

43. Logic puzzles are something I live on.

I think your logic is highly flawed here and that your conclusions are not at all logical and simply very convoluted.

I agree that he can't really predict what he might decide in the future, but it has nothing to do with wisdom or his capacity to be wiser in the future.

As a logician, what is your position on proving a negative?

[Binkie The Clown]

48. Whatever. I'm bored with this thread now.

You may claim it as a victory if you like. Pat yourself on the back and tell yourself I was scared away by your dazzling debate skills.

[cbayer]

49. Victory? Dazzling debate skills? Hardly.

You posted a bad article with a headline that was attractive but completely unsubstantiated by it's content.

If you can't defend it, it's perfectly fine for you to back away from it. In fact, it's the honorable thing to do and I give you credit for doing just that.

[beam me up scottie]

50. "You posted a bad article with a headline that was attractive but completely unsubstantiated ..."

Well if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is.

In other words you don't agree with the op so you've declared the article unworthy.

All hail the Decider of All Things Acceptable to Post in the Religion Group!

If you can't defend it, it's perfectly fine for you to back away from it. In fact, it's the honorable thing to do and I give you credit for doing just that.

Isn't that what you did here, cbayer, starting with post #7?:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218187258

[enki23]

61. Probably your own faithfulness/intransigence falls within the error margin in the model predictions.

But just to be safe, they should definitely add your data to the model.

[hrmjustin]

68. There you go.

[cbayer]

47. Message to all those who have recommended this:

There is not one scintilla of data presented by this author to substantiate the claim that "christians are leaving the faith in droves". Not one.

The inability of the average web reader to actually get past headlines and be able to analyze information is probably one of the most dangerous trends in the world right now. People will believe anything they are told if it suits their agenda.

[Leontius]

52. Don't be so hard on them

in some ways they're like addicts , they just need any little thing to get well.

[skepticscott]

53. And she doubles down

on the irony

[beam me up scottie]

56. I think she's trying to distract people from her exchange with gcomeau up thread.

[beam me up scottie]

54. Are you trying to shut down discussion of the op, cbayer?

By implying that the people who recommended it were too stupid to read it?

What about the people discussing it in GD, are they part of "one of the most dangerous trends in the world right now" too?


This was very petty thing to do, cbayer. I've never seen you post a dire warning in any other thread and there have been a lot of nasty flamebait ops in here.


Just what is it about this one that bothers you so much?


Stop trying to bully the op into backing away from it and discuss why you think the article is inaccurate.


If you can't make your point then do the honourable thing and stop acting like a mod. You don't get to decide what should and shouldn't be discussed in this forum.



Rec'ing to further discussion.

[trotsky]

65. That is EXACTLY what she is doing.

And has done in the past, and obviously will continue to do in the future as she locks out anyone who doesn't defer to her superior opinions.

Excellent post, bmus.

[beam me up scottie]

88. cbayer doesn't like thread, calls everyone who recs it stupid.

Either that or they didn't actually read the op.

Obviously they're just fucking WRONG because they don't agree with her.

Good thing she never got to be host.

[rug]

55. Reccing is magic.

[Fumesucker]

57. Yeah, you could think of reccing as a form of prayer

An ineffective activity designed to look like doing something productive.

I miss the rec unrec wars...

[rug]

58. Precisely.

[enki23]

60. Christians are, in fact, projected to leave the faith in "droves."

It's just that those "droves" aren't nearly enough to make up for the massive birth rates of Christians in third-world nations. Basically, Christian evangelism is well beyond its peak and is now moving backward. Nonetheless, worldwide Christian baby making remains very strong.

"Be fruitful and multiply" is beating the hell out of "go ye therefore and teach all nations." Old Testament God wins again.

[trotsky]

67. You are correct.

Thankfully there are still those who see the entire picture.

[cbayer]

72. Your statements are correct and reflect the data presented.

The author's are not.

[trotsky]

74. The author's are.

I don't think you are reading correctly.

Is this statement true or false:

About 106 million Christians are expected to switch affiliation from 2010 to 2050 while only about 40 million people are expected to enter Christianity.

[AlbertCat]

77. We can always argue over the word "droves" y'know.

Are 106 million a "drove"?!?!?

subtract the 40 million.... and then you only have 66 million.


Is that really a "drove"?

This is what's important here!!!!!!!!!!!!!







aaaaand.....

[trotsky]

78. LOL

Great point! How many does it take before you can call a group a drove??? Inquiring minds want to know!

[Curmudgeoness]

71. Do I trust the Pew Researchers, or do I trust you

to be the authority on whether there is data to substantiate claims. You were not involved in this study and you don't have all the details of it. Just because it is not presented in this little article doesn't mean that it does not exist.

The conclusions are based on the world's population, and not this little group on DU or your community, and like it or not, religion is losing ground in many parts of the world. I have no proof of this, but I think that it is losing ground in the US as well except that it doesn't look that way for all the vocal minority.

You can come down off that high horse now and stop lecturing us on how stupid we are.

[cbayer]

73. Really? The fact that you think that the choice is between the Pew data and me speaks volumes.

The PEW data is excellent and you should trust it. The author's analysis of what it says is what is wrong.

High horse? Lecturing about how stupid we are? You need a mirror.

[beam me up scottie]

89. Yes, obviously Curmudgeoness doesn't realize how brilliant you are.

When all you've got left is trying to shut down the conversation by calling posters stupid for reccing a thread, you've lost the debate.

Too bad they're not the one who did that.

Your little stunt backfired, didn't it?

[Lordquinton]

59. Message to all those reading this thread:

Cbayer has nothing to support her position and hopes no one will read the article and take her word for it. Read the article and make your own conclusions. Don't let bullys dominate the conversation!

[mr blur]

63. ^^This^^ (nt)

[trotsky]

66. Yes, this. +1000 n/t

[beam me up scottie]

90. Absolutely.

That was a classy move by cbayer.

[struggle4progress]

62. Here's a graph from the Pew article linked by your yahoo page

[gcomeau]

85. And?

I'm assuming that you have some specific point to make with that graph rather than just thinking it makes pretty thread decoration?



Is it... Christians and Muslims win at making babies, so there? Or something else?

[liberal N proud]

76. Leaving the faith or leaving religion?

There is a difference unless you are talking to those who are fighting the losses.

One can remain faithful without participating in the religion, or the church.

[Martin Eden]

80. I wonder if the trend towards atheism/agnosticism has anything to do with ...

... young people totally turned off by the bigotry, hypocrisy, and ignorant rhetoric of the Christian Right in America.

They're too narrow minded and stupid to realize that if they become a minority it's at least partly the result of pushing others away.

[cbayer]

81. The trend appears to be toward being non-affiliated.

While some move from a specific religion to a non-relgious position, others remain personally religious but have not specific affiliation.

The reasons for that appear to be exactly as you describe.

[Martin Eden]

82. That's good

I wouldn't want people to be pushed away from their natural quest for spirituality by a bunch of ignorant hypocrites.

[cbayer]

83. But being pushed away from the ignorant hypocrites themselves is a-ok with me!

[trotsky]

84. A "natural quest for spirituality"?

For those of us who don't feel a need to do this, are we "unnatural"?

[Martin Eden]

86. I don't feel the need to do it

But some do. Not all people are the same.

Personally, I have no spiritual beliefs. Nor has it been within my nature to seek it. However, in my experience I've found that some honest, intelligent people quest after spiritual meaning to the universe and their place in it. Not necessarily a formal religion or even belief in a deity, but a means to find some inner peace regarding what is (to them) important existential questions.

I hope you have found some clarification in my reply.

[trotsky]

95. Good, glad to hear it.

The way you put it, it sounded like you felt those not going on a "quest" were defective in some way.

[Dawson Leery]

103. The Roman Catholic Church is the biggest loser in this.

They are (fortunately) losing the most adherents.

[rug]

104. This survey doesn't break down Christianity into specific religions.

As it is a global survey, most other surveys project RCC growth.

You'll survive the bad news.