Materialists

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ShoeshineBoy, May 5, 2004.

  1. Turok

    Turok

    Damir:

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

    >according to this, there is disagreement on both the
    >defining and counting of c'ians

    Yes, they acknowledge the disagreement...they say the disagreement centers around whether christianity is DECLINING or STATIC. Neither position ends up with a "explosive growth" interpretation.

    JB

    PS Damir, I'm happy to discuss with you any question you wish.
     
    #671     May 14, 2004
  2. The frustration comes from Shoes insistence to NOT support
    his assertion, and to consistently DODGE my questions.

    Its very difficult to stay cool when someone refuses to
    answer any of your questions, and continues to argue
    things we have no interest in, instead of the real issue.

    I already explained why absolute numbers are worthless.

    If we follow the current trends, islam will surpass christianity
    as the #1 religion in the world and yet, we will still have
    Shoe claiming explosive growth because the christian
    population still went UP in the same time period. Absurd.

    We have SEVERAL sources that all show Christianity is
    in a downtrend in percentage terms.

    Shoe has not supplied A SINGLE COUNTER SOURCE


    So far - he has effectively refused to debate issue #1.


    peace

    axeman



     
    #672     May 14, 2004
  3. Turok

    Turok

    When your debate opponent gets a negative connotation from the words "religious tolerance" you just know it isn't gonna end well.

    JB

    PS, I'm on a plane, I really am (amazing that wireless broadband even reaches into the plane at the gate)


     
    #673     May 14, 2004
  4. Guys,

    I'll post my logic one more time:

    "As I mentioned already I extrapolate present growth rate numbers from the following logic:

    If Christian global growth is projected to be 2% in 2005, 2006, 2007 and onward, we can assume that it was close to 2% in 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001 and so on."

    Again, if you don't like my logic, fine.

    If you don't accept the idea that a growth rate in 2005 indicates a similar growth in 2004 - fine.

    And if you don't think 2% is "explosive growth" - fine.

    But don't say I didn't post it. This is the second time now.
     
    #674     May 14, 2004
  5. You're attacking me from 30,000 feet! That ain't fair...
     
    #675     May 14, 2004
  6. Turok

    Turok

    >Guys,

    >I'll post my logic one more time:

    And I'll ask my question one more time.

    Shoe,

    Why would you need to assert current growth ONLY by producing future projections?

    Why don't you just come up with CURRENT numbers to support CURRENT growth. This seems like a very logical and reasonable thing to do.

    JB
     
    #676     May 14, 2004
  7. If Christian global growth is projected to be 2% in 2005, 2006, 2007 and onward, we can assume that it was close to 2% in 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001 and so on."


    No we cant!! Dude... your math/logic skills are SORELY lacking.

    This is simply FALSE.


    The PAST already occured.
    Future growth projections cannot alter it.
    You cannot extrapolate in REVERSE based on future projections!


    Geeezzuzzz.... where do you get this stuff???????


    axeman <--- banging head against monitor.



    peace

    axeman




     
    #677     May 14, 2004
  8. All right, I'm with Damir - let's go onto Shoe Myth #2.

    First of all, I'm probably going to agree with you to a certain extent on #2.

    It is so difficult to talk to you guys though cuzz if I take both sides of an issue you always take advantage!

    But I digress. Anyway, here is my new thesis:

    "If I meet a Christian who 1) believes that the Bible is divinely inspired (or whatever wording you want to use) and 2) has read the Bible extensively for him or herself and 3) does not consider extrabiblical sources as scripture, then I have a 95% chance of agreeing with them on the core doctrines of Christianity."

    Now that's my new thesis, because I agree with you that I would be fundamentally different from a syncretistic third world catholic that is worshipping Mary or from a Mormon who has additional three books he considers scriptural or a very liberal christian that believes the Bible is a nice compendium of stories from days of old...

    This however is a MUCH larger % than 2% of the Christian population that you suggested for many reasons...

    So I am making a partial concession...
     
    #678     May 14, 2004
  9. No, "dude", it's your math skills that are lacking. The slope of a continuous function cannot change instantaneously along a curved path. So keep banging your head on the monitor until you see what I'm saying...
     
    #679     May 14, 2004
  10. And Axe, ask yourself a question: if in the last few decades Christianity has grown in the Southern Hemisphere by 200, 300, 400 million believers or whatever it is - where has the decline in Christianity occurred that would compensate?

    If you can show me that 300 million have left the church in Western Europe, then I'll concede the point that there was brief downturn from 1970 to 2000 in Christianity's otherwise explosive growth since the turn of the century due to a loss of membership in Western Europe...
     
    #680     May 14, 2004