Conversions

[Medicine*Woman]

Quote MW:
"I've just been diagnosed with end-stage congestive heart failure, so I know my time is limited."

* I am extremely sad to hear that MW. My very best wishes to you.

*************
M*W: Thank you for your good wishes.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

I posted this information on a thread sometime ago.

Number of adherents of world religions:

According to David Barrett et al, editors of the "World Christian Encyclopedia: A comparative survey of churches and religions - AD 30 to 2200," there are 19 major world religions which are subdivided into a total of 270 large religious groups, and many smaller ones. 34,000 separate Christian groups have been identified in the world. "Over half of them are independent churches that are not interested in linking with the big denominations." Most people in the world follow one of the religions listed in the table below. Included is the name of the religion, the approximate date of its origin, its main sacred or ethical texts (if any) and its estimated numerical strength (both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of the world's population.)

These data are based on census or public opinion data. Thus, a person is considered to be of a particular religion if they say that they are of that faith. Thus, about 75% of the adults in both the U.S. and Canada are Christians. Many individuals and religious groups have much more strict definitions for membership. Many conservative Christians believe that one has to be "born again" in order to be counted as a Christian. Using this definition, only about 35% of Americans would be counted as Christians. This difference in definitions between conservative Christians and the rest of the population causes much confusion. Some of the approximately 1,000 Christian faith groups in the U.S. and Canada believe themselves to be the only true Christian denomination. Thus, depending on the definition used, the percentage of Christians in the U.S. are 0.1 to 75% of the total population.

Basic information on various religions:

Religion Date Founded Sacred Texts Membership % of World

Christianity 30 CE The Bible 2,015 million 33% (dropping)
Islam 622 CE Qur'an & Hadith 1,215 million 20% (dropping)
No religion * No date None 925 million 15% (growing)
Hinduism 1,500 BCE The Veda 786 million 13% (stable)
Buddhism 523 BCE The Tripitaka 362 million 6% (stable)
Atheists No date None 211 million 4% (growing)
Chinese folk rel. 270 BCE None 188 million 4%
new Asian rel. Various Various 106 million 2%
Tribal, Animism prehistory Oral tradition 91 million 2%
Other Various Various 19 million <1%
Judaism No consensus Torah, Talmud 18 million <1%
Sikhism 1500 CE Guru Granth Sahib 16 million <1%
Shamanists Prehistory Oral Tradition 12 million <1%
Spiritism 7 million <1%
Confucianism 520 BCE Lun Yu 5 million <1%
Baha'i Faith 1863 CE Most Holy Book 4 million <1%
Jainism 570 BCE Siddhanta, Pakrit 3 million <1%
Shinto 500 CE Kojiki,Nohon Shoki3 million <1%
Wicca 800 BCE,1940 CE None 500,000? <1%
Zoroastrianism No consensus Avesta 0.2 million <1%

Notes:
* Persons with no religion, agnostics, freethinkers, humanists, secularists, etc.
We have included Wicca even though their numbers are small because such a large percentage of our site's visitors are of that faith.
We have included Zoroastrianism even though they are small in numbers, because of the immense role that the religion has played throughout history.
the point I'd, like to make is there are a lot of people out there who are unbelievers sorry non-believers, who once converted will refer to themselves as an ex-atheist because they associate non-believer with atheism, but they could have been any number of things other than atheist, and had not really known it, but they needed to give it a label and atheism is as good as any other, for instance when if ever, have you heard a theist say the used to be an agnostic, freethinker, humanist, secularist, etc.
they only ever say they were atheist, dont they.

addendum

there are 34,000 different sects of christianity, all calling themselves christian, they cant all be right, so it is a reasonable assumption to say that not all aledge ex-atheist were really atheist, does'nt it.
so as atheism is classed separately from non-believers, we can say it is extremely unlikely they were ever atheist, more likely something else.

this is now the whole article see here http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=45167

*************
M*W: I believe a 2005 edition of adherents is available online.

 

[Hapsburg]

Sorry to interrupt...

30,000 Protestant Denominations?

That is precisely why the Protestant forces could not bring a final, crushing blow upon Catholicism in the wars from 1521-1648. They are far too fractured, splintered, broken, disparate, and conflicted. No central authority, no governing council, no core leadership.
In short, they because had no protestant pope. They could not bring themselves to bear because they were too busy fighting themselves over conflicting interests, because there was no central leadership to sort shit out.
Morons. Sheeple morons.

 

[audible]

you're making claims which border on lunacy.

you seem to be the only one fighting your corner, and your being the rudest, which does'nt help your arguement, you have so far insulted anyone who opposed you, but none have insulted you.
therefore sir it would seem your arguements invalid.
thats not to say I've read it, this is just by your attitude.

 

[dr. cello]

congratulations on the argumentum ad hominem! you know, i've never actually seen someone so blatantly admit to that particular fallacy. give the man a prize!

but in the future, kindly attack the arguments rather than the person. it'll make you look like less of a twerp.

 

[audible]

I was attacking you for your rudeness, not the arguement, if you feel it was a distraction from the original arguement, then that is only a fault of your mentality, you are even rude to me for pointing out you error in manners.
so sir change your attitude, you will look like less of a twerp too.

 

[dr. cello]

therefore sir it would seem your arguements invalid.

I was attacking you for your rudeness, not the arguement

QED.

 

[audible]

therefore sir it would seem your arguements invalid.
thats not to say I've read it, this is just by your attitude.

I was attacking you for your rudeness, not the arguement

your QED is in error

 

[Jenyar]

That is precisely why the Protestant forces could not bring a final, crushing blow upon Catholicism in the wars from 1521-1648. They are far too fractured, splintered, broken, disparate, and conflicted. No central authority, no governing council, no core leadership.
In short, they because had no protestant pope. They could not bring themselves to bear because they were too busy fighting themselves over conflicting interests, because there was no central leadership to sort shit out.
Morons. Sheeple morons.

It wasn't a war, it was a doctrinal schism: Schisma (German). Maybe you have the so-called "Peasant's war" in mind...

Obwohl die Standpunkte der Reformation eine wesentliche Rechtfertigung für die aufständischen Bauern waren, distanzierte sich Martin Luther deutlich vom Bauernkrieg. Schon 1521 unterschied er genau zwischen weltlichem und geistlichem Bereich, da er mit der Reformation die Veränderung der Kirche und nicht – im Gegensatz zu Savonarola – eine Verchristlichung der Welt erreichen wollte. - Bauernkrieg und Religion​

But from your name I assume it has more to do with the Thirty Years War, which happened when the religious conflict (which was officially resolved by the Peace of Augsburg in 1555) evolved into a European civil war, and an attempt at the self-preservation of the Habsburg dynasty (they were a major ruling house in Europe, descendents of the Roman emperors). That it isn't a simple matter of "protestant vs. catholic" can be seen from the fact that France, a mainly Catholic country, allied itself with the Protestant Netherlands and Sweden against the Habsburg armies.

That violence ensued during that time of religious upheaval was unfortunate and reprehensible. Luther certainly did not have violence in mind - he simply wanted debate - but the political atmosphere was ignited by his resistance against Catholic malpractices. Part of their aversion was of a central leadership that could become corrupt. Luther wanted the Pope to answer to scripture, as something that had authority over the whole church, instead of something only the Pope or clergy could interpret unilaterally. "He denied that membership in the western Catholic Church under the pope was necessary to salvation, maintaining the validity of the eastern Greek (Orthodox) Church."

"Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason—I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other—my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe." - Martin Luther.​

So you may see that the conflict was not over a lack of central authority, but over who (or what) the central authority is. The Protestants didn't organize themselves for a war, because that wasn't their intention. But that some political powers in Europe would be Protestant and some would be Catholic was as certain as that some Christians would be French and some would be German. Whether they acted like Christians in their political power-struggles is another matter, something I gladly leave for God to decide.

 

[mustafhakofi]

believe me, religious people know the difference. i sure did when i was religious.

as did I when I was muslim,(most of my family hate me for it) but sorry not all know the difference, as we are refering to adult aledged atheists.

and you miss the point that everyone is born an atheist,

yes but we only ever turn from our beliefs when we reach adulthood, and we are much more discerning.
when we've had a life of un-belief we decide which path we wish to follow,(this could happen at 15 or 70 it matters not.) be it an atheist and say with assertiveness there is no god, or be it a theist and say with assertiveness there is a god, before that time we are just un-believers,
when we've been brought up into a religious sect , there is always a possiblity you will change our minds and follow another path

if you're defining atheist in a positive sense (note that the word is a negative form of theist) can you avoid this truth, and if you're doing that, then you're telling most atheists that they are not, in fact, atheists.

no, because they chose to follow that path, when they reached their level of sense, intellect, reason.

furthermore, your statements seem to rely on the assumption that someone cannot go from a belief that they believe to be rational to one that they once believed to be irrational.

I would say your correct there, certainly not without some traumatic/strange experience, but it's not an assumption. atheist dont assume anything, that would be foolish.

in essence you are stating that any religious conversion, apart from the undecideds, is impossible.

no because we're not talking one religion to another religion, we're talking rational to irrational, there is a huge difference.

either that, or you are claiming absolute knowledge of all arguments, rational and irrational, in support of or opposition to religious belief that are inherently possible, and claiming that all atheists similarly know all of these arguments, and are therefore incapable of being swayed by them, because they know and have discounted them already.

no, they would be irrational, but the atheist facts are much more substantial, then the god did it scenerio.

 

[dr. cello]

audible: look up 'ad hominem'. it is, by definition, attacking a person and saying that because X is true about them, their arguments are invalid. you did just this. now go do something productive, like counter arguments instead of bitching about how i called absurd beliefs absurd.

mustafhakofi:
i once believed christianity to be rational and therefore that nonbelief was irrational. the reverse, as it were, is now true. according to your beliefs, i have just done the impossible:

...someone cannot go from a belief that they believe to be rational to one that they once believed to be irrational.

I would say your correct there, certainly not without some traumatic/strange experience

there was no traumatic experience that caused the change of my belief system. i did not leave the faith (which I BELIEVED TO BE RATIONAL) because of some trauma or emotional hardship. i left because furthering my studies caused me to believe that things were not rational. so, to recap:

1. I was a Christian. I believed it to be rational, and therefore anything else irrational.
2. With further study, new facts presented themselves to me that discounted Christianity. It ceased to be rational.
3. I stopped believing in Christianity, which I once believed to be rational. I became an unbeliever, which I once believed to be irrational.
4. I went, from my perspective a few years ago, from rational to irrational beliefs. From my perspective now the reverse is true.

no trauma. nothing strange. merely study. now let's create a new scenario.

1. Johnny Atheist holds to atheism as rational, and theism as irrational.
2. Johnny Atheist is a weak atheist. Like most weak atheists, he is an atheist because he simply has not seen any evidence to suggest that God exists. This is the definition of a weak atheist.
3. Johnny Atheist is presented with one of the proofs of God's existence, and finds that it is a rational statement. He does some research and believes that the arguments against it are weak. He comes to believe that theism is no longer irrational, and that atheism is no longer rational.
4. Johnny Atheist becomes a theist.
5. Johnny Atheist went, from his perspective at the start of this argument, from rational to irrational. From his perspective now, the reverse is true.
6. As a theist, certain beliefs are open to Johnny Atheist now that were not before, ie the ones that require belief in God.

here is my point: excepting a few individuals, there is not a living soul who believes that his beliefs are irrational. and there is not a living soul who is utterly immune to persuasive arguments that change his beliefs. it is true that long-held beliefs are less likely to change, but they still can.

you're making a hasty generalisation when you say that because there are no theist arguments that you find rational, that there are also no theist arguments that every atheist alive finds rational.

in short: stop making assumptions about the beliefs of others. you are not the world; stop acting like it. (i know some intelligent christians, by the way, who are not only quite rational people, but who have claimed atheism in the past. they are not the type who confuses atheism for just any type of unbelief. i think they know what they believed.)

 

[pavlosmarcos]

1. Johnny Atheist holds to atheism as rational, and theism as irrational.

yes through reason, sense, and intellect, he has come to this conclusion, if he has'nt then he is being irrational, it is pretty damn stupid to not have a fairly good knowledge of a subject, in order to refute it, you would be asking for trouble.
you only have to take a look at some of the guys here such as cris sarkus snakelord micheal to name but a small few so guys if I missed anyone the list is huge.
after all it is called sciforums for a reason.

2. Johnny Atheist is a weak atheist. Like most weak atheists, he is an atheist because he simply has not seen any evidence to suggest that God exists. This is the definition of a weak atheist.

Atheism is based upon a materialist philosophy, which holds that nothing exists but natural phenomena. There are no supernatural forces or entities, nor can there be any. Nature simply exists.... Madalyn Murray O'hair.

3. Johnny Atheist is presented with one of the proofs of God's existence, and finds that it is a rational statement. He does some research and believes that the arguments against it are weak. He comes to believe that theism is no longer irrational, and that atheism is no longer rational.

is this a new proof, as there are no old ones, yes he would research it, rationalise it, cogitate it, he would discuss it with other atheists on a forum, he knows, he would get logical arguement from them, it could take tens of years, he would test it the scientific way, unless it was say one instant of a god showing itself, to him and many thousands of other atheists, at the same time.


The Atheist must slice through all obfuscation to bedrock, to the basic idea that those who regard nature as primary and thought as a property (or function) of matter belong to the camp of materialism, and that those who maintain that spirit or idea or mind existed before nature or created nature or uphold nature belong to the camp of idealism. All conventional religions are based on idealism. Many varieties of idealism exist, but the apologist for idealism and opponents of materialism go under many names; we have, for instance, dualists, objective idealists, subjective idealists, solipsists, positivists, Machians, irrationalists, existentialists, neo-positivists, logical positivists, fideists, revived medieval scholastics, Thomists. And opposed to these stand alone the Atheistic materialists (or perhaps naturalists, Rationalists, freethinkers, etc.) who have no need for intellectual machinations, deceptions, or masquerades.... Madalyn Murray O'hair.

 

[dr. cello]

yes through reason, sense, and intellect, he has come to this conclusion, if he has'nt then he is being irrational, it is pretty damn stupid to not have a fairly good knowledge of a subject, in order to refute it, you would be asking for trouble.

one of the remarkable things about this little argument i put forth, is that i was making no claims that Johnny Atheist's initial position was wrong, nor that his conclusion was correct.

Atheism is based upon a materialist philosophy, which holds that nothing exists but natural phenomena. There are no supernatural forces or entities, nor can there be any. Nature simply exists.... Madalyn Murray O'hair.

first. you are redefining the word atheism to suit your own silly and petty means. that being the case, it does not alter any point of my argument.

is this a new proof, as there are no old ones, yes he would research it, rationalise it, cogitate it, he would discuss it with other atheists on a forum, he knows, he would get logical arguement from them, it could take tens of years, he would test it the scientific way, unless it was say one instant of a god showing itself, to him and many thousands of other atheists, at the same time.

my apologies, i meant to put 'proof' in inverted commas. there are countless of them out there. some of them are more substantial than others. after your dispute with the word 'proof', there are several problems with your argument. first, you are assuming this atheist to be a terribly rational person. i've seen compelling evidence that atheists are not granted gifts of rationality, any more than religious people are.

you probably have never encountered any of the 'proofs' for God. i have, and i don't find any of them terribly satisfactory. let's say that Johnny Atheist was familiar with them also, so he knew the counterarguments to it. in discussing things with Freddy Theist, Freddy put things in a new light that made it easy to understand and, more importantly, to believe. and his properly open mind would not allow him to discredit evidence that was set before him simply because it did not fit into his belief system. he asked questions, and found the answers unsatisfactory. his doubt in atheism grew until he had no choice but to join Freddy in the ranks of the theists.

The Atheist must slice through all obfuscation to bedrock, to the basic idea that those who regard nature as primary and thought as a property (or function) of matter belong to the camp of materialism, and that those who maintain that spirit or idea or mind existed before nature or created nature or uphold nature belong to the camp of idealism. All conventional religions are based on idealism. Many varieties of idealism exist, but the apologist for idealism and opponents of materialism go under many names; we have, for instance, dualists, objective idealists, subjective idealists, solipsists, positivists, Machians, irrationalists, existentialists, neo-positivists, logical positivists, fideists, revived medieval scholastics, Thomists. And opposed to these stand alone the Atheistic materialists (or perhaps naturalists, Rationalists, freethinkers, etc.) who have no need for intellectual machinations, deceptions, or masquerades.... Madalyn Murray O'hair.

first: "A witty quote proves nothing." -Voltaire (attributed)

use your own words. quotes aren't very compelling.

this is a definition of strong atheists, as far as i am concerned--one who actively denies the existence of a god. i am not using some complex pseudo-philosophical definition. as a writer, i like to use the simplest, least obfuscated definition for something. when i say 'atheist' i do not mean some noble materialist scientist who believes that anything but natural phenomena are impossible, who is standing directly in opposition to the evils and woes of the religious world, who are, by the way, all a lot of irrational imbeciles who would know better if they'd just done their homework better.

i mean 'someone who has no belief in a God or gods, or who actively denies the existence of a God or gods.' that's all. happy? happy.

let's go back to my earlier post, because i love referencing myself--it's just so pretentious. in my earlier post, i said that i knew some very rational religious people who had done the same research i had and come to the conclusion that it was false. i also said that these same people, who are apologists for the faith, know what they are talking about when they say that they were once atheists. they're not making the error that people seem to say that all 'ex-atheists' are making, and simply 'believing' that they were once atheists, because they don't know the terms. they know the terms. they know the difference between agnostics and atheists, they weren't simply 'undecided'. i have no reason to doubt their statements.

 

[MightIsRight]

It seems to me that Atheism is predicated upon rationality and rationality is based upon logic.

Atheism presumes some logical method of proving that God (any god) does not exist.

However, logic can never be used to prove a negative (logic 101), so isn't Atheism by definition illogical and irrational? Agnositc seems more logical or resonable. Even Theists have more logic than Atheists since they at least attempt to prove a positive assertion.

 

[audible]

Atheism presumes some logical method of proving that God (any god) does not exist.

no, atheist make not such assertion, atheist simply say it is unreasonable to believe a god exist, we dont have to prove it , it's up to the person who asserts one exist to provide prove.
after all it only takes one tiny instant of a thing for it to prove, it exist, it would be extremely stupid to try to prove non-existence, would'nt it.
you need to study up on what an atheist is, before making inane statements, and welcome to sciforums.

 

[MightIsRight]

If you make no assertion that God does not exist then why call yourself Atheist. The name itself means "NO GOD" or "not someone who believes in god" so you are in fact making exactly that assertion.

The truth is that there is much evidence for God. However, the evidence is circumstantial and is therefore open to interpretation (thus the many religions of the world). The Atheist must assume (with out evidence) that all things can be explained by science or logic. There is no evidence for such an assumption therefore the Atheist is showing Faith or Belief in something which he does not know. The Atheist therefore worships what he believes in (e.g. science) while the Theist worships what he believes in (some deity). Both have irrational faith and belief. The Atheist, however, is less logical/rational since he denies his own philosophy in an attempt to delude himself.

What you describe as Atheist is actually Agnostic i.e. I don't know and don't care.

Thanks for the welcome but I have been here a long time, I just don't do this very often since it is only slightly entertaining to argue with those who already have their mind made up.

 

[dr. cello]

only they don't 'not know and not care'. they disbelieve in God. an agnostic believes that there can be no knowledge of God--an atheist disbelieves. one need not prove a non-existence to disbelieve. i can't prove that there is not an invisible, intangible dragon living in my house. but i don't believe in it.

 

[MightIsRight]

Ah, if only Atheists were so pure.

It is perfectly legitamite to disbelieve, but in doing so it is not permissable to force that disbelief on others... Any Atheist who tries to persuade others to disblieve with him has now changed from disblief of something to belief in nothing - not the same at all. One cannot persuade others of non-belief (you can't prove a negative).

In fact, Atheists are not so pure as you describe. They believe in Nature and Thought (see quote above by Madalyn Murray O'hair). Your description of Atheism may be ideal but it is in fact not what practicing Athiests practice.

 

[dr. cello]

nature and thought aren't gods, chief.

let me repeat my definition: atheist: 'one who disbelieves in, or denies the existence of, a god or gods.'