Materialists

[axeman]

Shoe, you are swimming in the depths of absurdity.

Carefully read your original quote again:
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."

So in other words you are saying:

1) Projected Growth in 2005, 2006, 2007+ is expected to be 2%
2) We can THEREFORE assume that it was close to 2% in the PAST

This is such an absurd, ridiculous, and blatantly FALSE assumption.

Now please explain by what logic/math you can ASSUME
something about the past WHICH HAS ALREADY occurred
based on a future projection?

You cant.

Your continuous function nonsense, is just that.
Could you please provide us with the continuous function
for global christian percentage growth/decline?
Give me a break. This makes no sense at all.

The FACTS are, your assumption has already been proved
false because growth HAS NOT BEEN 2% per year
in 2001 to 2004.

Your simply WRONG, and your math/logic skills completely off base.

It is illogical to make ASSUMPTIONS on the chaotic past of
population growth based on future predictions.
Its even silly to try, because its easier and obviously far
more accurate to SIMPLY CHECK what already happened.

Find me a single mathematician that agrees you can predict
the past based on future projections.


Look at ASKJ.... its up 4100% recently. So can we ASSUME
that in the past it has been growing at these kinds of rates?
Oooops.... it lost 99% of its value in around 2000.

Your logic is horribly flawed.
Its not even debatable.



peace

axeman

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

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...

 

[axeman]

I already posted the numbers shoe.

And the burden of proof is on you not me.


Logically, the numbers show there WAS a decline elsewhere.
There is no requirement for me to pinpoint exactly where
since YOU are making the assertion.

Your numbers are a mere subset, and I have already explained
why they are irrelevant. Take the horse blinders off and deal
with the big picture.

There is NOT current explosive growth in christianity
on a global scale, PERIOD.

You have not come close to refuting that.


peace

axeman

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

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...

 

[axeman]

I dont see the point of moving on to Myth #2,
when Myth #1 was so crystal clear and supported
by such strong OBJECTIVE numbers.

Shoe didnt provide a single counter set of data,
and STILL wont concede the point.

The debate was not even close.


It is therefore WORTHLESS debating with someone THAT
biased and closeminded on a SECOND issue that may
not be as clear as the first issue.

Shoe went through some simply AMAZING twisting, turning
and spinning on the first OBVIOUS issue.

Issue #2 will be an even more torturous and drawn out
silly mess of a debate.


I could debate that the sky is blue with shoe and it would
take 500 pages for him to finally admit it.
And more than likely, he wouldn't even admit that, he would
just continually change the subject instead.


CONCLUSION: The data clearly does NOT support a current
global explosive growth of Christianity.

End of story. Really.


peace

axeman

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from axeman:



Look at ASKJ.... its up 4100% recently. So can we ASSUME
that in the past it has been growing at these kinds of rates?
Oooops.... it lost 99% of its value in around 2000.

A stock is not a good analogy. World population has little to no volatility.

But I told you: I can accept your point if Christianity lost 300 million in the last thirty years.

The ironic thing is that it doesn't matter. My original post to damir is still valid regardless...As usual, you guys are nitpicking my arguments...

Here's a sobering thought: there can be little more decline in growth becasue there is nowhere for Christianity to decline! Western Europe and America has already bottomed out.

Christianity has nowhere to go but up at this point and will be carried by the high growth in the South. So again my point to damir is still valid...

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from axeman:




CONCLUSION: The data clearly does NOT support a current
global explosive growth of Christianity.

End of story. Really.

Yeah, right! And when there's 2.6 billion Christians on planet earth in 20 years we'll just attribute that to what? Low growth? Declining membership?

Call it what you want but there is going to be a drastically higher number of Christians down here shortly. And that was my point to damir!

 

[axeman]

You miss the point again.

Simply put.... future projections are not capable of altering the past.

In fact... your future projects are blatantly wrong and do not
match up with history, which already proves that your
assumption and therefore assertion is FALSE.

Also... what you call "nitpicking" is what I call sticking to the issue
which you apparently DONT WANT TO DO.

Your original assertion was the there is currently explosive
growth in christianity.

This has been proven completely false, and beaten to death
with statistics from several sources.


Your position is lost. You can make excuses and spin what happened
any way you like, but it doesnt change the reality of the matter.


CONCLUSION: The data does not support a current christian growth explosion.


peace

axeman

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

A stock is not a good analogy. World population has little to no volatility.

But I told you: I can accept your point if Christianity lost 300 million in the last thirty years.

The ironic thing is that it doesn't matter. My original post to damir is still valid regardless...As usual, you guys are nitpicking my arguments...

Here's a sobering thought: there can be little more decline in growth becasue there is nowhere for Christianity to decline! Western Europe and America has already bottomed out.

Christianity has nowhere to go but up at this point and will be carried by the high growth in the South. So again my point to damir is still valid...

 

[axeman]

I already explained why absolute numbers are a useless measurement.

I even gave you a simple frog/turtle analogy.
But you are only proving you dont wish to learn.

After I shred your argument to pieces, you simply repeat it
a short time later. What is the point?

You simply just dont get it.


peace

axeman

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

Yeah, right! And when there's 2.6 billion Christians on planet earth in 20 years we'll just attribute that to what? Low growth? Declining membership?

Call it what you want but there is going to be a drastically higher number of Christians down here shortly. And that was my point to damir!

 

[axeman]

If their numbers as a percentage of world population dropped,
then yes, that would absolutely be a decline.

If we use your faulty absolute numbers, then I can claim
ALL GROUPS are experiencing explosive growth, because
all groups numbers increase as the general population increases.

But this would just be yet another worthless truism.


It seems you simply dont understand why percentages
are the correct measurement.


peace

axeman

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

Yeah, right! And when there's 2.6 billion Christians on planet earth in 20 years we'll just attribute that to what? Low growth? Declining membership?

Call it what you want but there is going to be a drastically higher number of Christians down here shortly. And that was my point to damir!

 

[damir00]

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

3) does not consider extrabiblical sources as scripture, then I have a 95% chance of agreeing with them on the core doctrines of Christianity.

technically, this requirement eliminates every single person who refers to themselves as "christian". in practical terms it eliminates a mere majority.

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from damir00:

technically, this requirement eliminates every single person who refers to themselves as "christian". in practical terms it eliminates a mere majority.

You lost me.