Why do Christians outnumber atheists?

[Unknown Soldier]

Ahah! This is a sure sign you are losing the argument. A very superb poster and master debater once said this:

...an ad hominem fallacy. It's well known that a good clue that somebody knows he's losing an argument is when he goes on the personal attack.

That's correct. If I feel physically threatened by a deranged person I'm debating, then I make a hasty exit warning others about the danger. It's better for me to lose a debate than to lose my life.

And I didn't fail to notice your lack of shock at the death-threat revelation.

 

[laughing dog]

Worldwide atheism is about 7 percent of the population versus about 25 percent Christian.

. Worldwide there are more people who do not believe in a Christian god ( Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, atheists. Bahais, etc…) then who do.

That is correct.

Why are there more non-believers in a Christian god than who do?

I don't know, I don't know why I'm supposed to know, you should be able to find out yourself, and the issue is irrelevant to the topic.

But you expect people to answer the question "Why do Christians outnumber atheists?". It seems to me are either underestimating your abilities or you have double standards.

Aside from your post here, I cannot find that question posed to me anywhere in this thread. If it's meant for me to answer, then it's misaddressed because I'm a truth seeker and not a Christian. So who wants to be an atheist when they see that atheists falsely claim they asked somebody a question never posed to that person which is in any case misaddressed?

Post 66...

OK, I see the question now. Like everybody else in this forum, I don't answer all the questions posed to me because I'm not obligated to answer all those questions.

True, but when one is asked a number of times, and when that person expects other people to answer their questions, it is polite protocol to respond to questions.

...and 73 ask the question in different forms.

I generally don't respond to apparently mentally deranged posters who threaten to kill me.

Now, you are babbling.

Your refusal to answer casts the “ truth seeker” claim hard to believe.

There are many reasons questions may go unanswered like I listed above so you're probably wrong to assume dishonesty on my part (in fact you are wrong by assuming I'm being dishonest).

You have given only reason (I don't wanna). Perhaps my conclusion is wrong, but unfortunately for you, your posting history provides strong evidence to support my conclusion and none to support your claim.

Let me conclude this post by pointing out that what you're saying here amounts to an ad hominem fallacy. It's well known that a good clue that somebody knows he's losing an argument is when he goes on the personal attack.

You do realize how ironic your passive aggressive personal attack is.

A poster interested in honest rational discussion, asks honest questions and responds to honest questions. You have consistently evaded an honest and relevant question by resorting to a personal attack. Hmmm...

 

[Unknown Soldier]

But you expect people to answer the question "Why do Christians outnumber atheists?".

They may answer the question if they wish, but I don't demand that they answer it.

It seems to me are either underestimating your abilities or you have double standards.

That's another ad hominem.

True, but when one is asked a number of times, and when that person expects other people to answer their questions, it is polite protocol to respond to questions.

Polite protocol in this forum? Since when?

...and 73 ask the question in different forms.

I generally don't respond to apparently mentally deranged posters who threaten to kill me.

Now, you are babbling.

What is it about my being threatened that you don't get?

Your refusal to answer casts the “ truth seeker” claim hard to believe.

There are many reasons questions may go unanswered like I listed above so you're probably wrong to assume dishonesty on my part (in fact you are wrong by assuming I'm being dishonest).

You have given only reason (I don't wanna).

My concern is that your question is intended to shift attention away from the fact that many of the atheists here fear the implications of their being outnumbered by Christians.

Perhaps my conclusion is wrong, but unfortunately for you, your posting history provides strong evidence to support my conclusion and none to support your claim.

What conclusion?

Let me conclude this post by pointing out that what you're saying here amounts to an ad hominem fallacy. It's well known that a good clue that somebody knows he's losing an argument is when he goes on the personal attack.

A poster interested in honest rational discussion, asks honest questions and responds to honest questions.

Yes, so let's get more answers to why Christians outnumber atheists.

You have consistently evaded an honest and relevant question by resorting to a personal attack. Hmmm...

If you think I haven't seen these tactics of yours before, then guess again. You're putting me on trial to draw attention away from an embarrassing issue. If you can make me look bad, then you hope my readers won't accept what I say.

 

[pood]

“my readers,” lol

 

[laughing dog]

But you expect people to answer the question "Why do Christians outnumber atheists?".

They may answer the question if they wish, but I don't demand that they answer it.

Non-responsive to the issue.

It seems to me are either underestimating your abilities or you have double standards.

That's another ad hominem.

No it is not.

True, but when one is asked a number of times, and when that person expects other people to answer their questions, it is polite protocol to respond to questions.

Polite protocol in this forum? Since when?

...and 73 ask the question in different forms.

I generally don't respond to apparently mentally deranged posters who threaten to kill me.

Now, you are babbling.

What is it about my being threatened that you don't get?

You are not in any real danger. More importantly, no one in post 66 or 73 threatened you.

Your refusal to answer casts the “ truth seeker” claim hard to believe.

There are many reasons questions may go unanswered like I listed above so you're probably wrong to assume dishonesty on my part (in fact you are wrong by assuming I'm being dishonest).

You have given only reason (I don't wanna).

My concern is that your question is intended to shift attention away from the fact that many of the atheists here fear the implications of their being outnumbered by Christians.

WTF? Any atheist in the world already knows that they are vastly outnumbered by theists (Christian or otherwise).

Perhaps my conclusion is wrong, but unfortunately for you, your posting history provides strong evidence to support my conclusion and none to support your claim.

What conclusion?

That you are not willing to engage in honest discussion.

Let me conclude this post by pointing out that what you're saying here amounts to an ad hominem fallacy. It's well known that a good clue that somebody knows he's losing an argument is when he goes on the personal attack.

A poster interested in honest rational discussion, asks honest questions and responds to honest questions.

Yes, so let's get more answers to why Christians outnumber atheists.

And why non-Christianians outnumber atheists.

You have consistently evaded an honest and relevant question by resorting to a personal attack. Hmmm...

If you think I haven't seen these tactics of yours before, then guess again. You're putting me on trial to draw attention away from an embarrassing issue. If you can make me look bad, then you hope my readers won't accept what I say.

You don't need any help in making yourself look bad or inducing any rational disinterested participant in rejecting your "arguments".

You are putting yourself on trial by your evasion. The question is an attempt to get you to understand some of the responses you have received. Perhaps your answers may shed some light on why there are more Christians than atheists. I find it hard to believe someone who self-describes as a seeker of truth is so unwilling to seek the truth.

It is clear to me that you will make any excuse to avoid answering a honest and relevant question. Which suggests you are anything but a seeker of truth.

 

[pood]

The opposite of “truth seeker” is “sophist.” Others may judge which best fits the description under his user name. I’d say that all of his threads have been exercises is sophistical (as opposed to sophisticated) evasion and disingenuousness.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Ahah! This is a sure sign you are losing the argument. A very superb poster and master debater once said this:

...an ad hominem fallacy. It's well known that a good clue that somebody knows he's losing an argument is when he goes on the personal attack.

That's correct. If I feel physically threatened by a deranged person I'm debating, then I make a hasty exit warning others about the danger. It's better for me to lose a debate than to lose my life.

And I didn't fail to notice your lack of shock at the death-threat revelation.

That isn't a rational conclusion by you since we discussed this in the past and it was very clearly not a death threat. Yet, there you are, claiming it is and not addressing the argument. It is clear to everyone reading that in the free marketplace of ideas, your idea is quickly losing in the competition to other ideas because you can neither defend it nor respond to any questions presented about the topic.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

That you are not willing to engage in honest discussion.

Then we have no more to discuss.

 

[laughing dog]

That you are not willing to engage in honest discussion.

Then we have no more to discuss.

Thank you for confirming my observations that you are not a seeker of truth and that you are unwilling to engage in honest discussion.

 

[TomC]

That you are not willing to engage in honest discussion.

Then we have no more to discuss.

But, here you are.

Responding to that post, but not the many other more challenging ones.

I get it, even if you don't.
Tom

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Ahah! This is a sure sign you are losing the argument. A very superb poster and master debater once said this:

...an ad hominem fallacy. It's well known that a good clue that somebody knows he's losing an argument is when he goes on the personal attack.

That's correct. If I feel physically threatened by a deranged person I'm debating, then I make a hasty exit warning others about the danger. It's better for me to lose a debate than to lose my life.

And I didn't fail to notice your lack of shock at the death-threat revelation.

That isn't a rational conclusion by you since we discussed this in the past and it was very clearly not a death threat. Yet, there you are, claiming it is and not addressing the argument. It is clear to everyone reading that in the free marketplace of ideas, your idea is quickly losing in the competition to other ideas because you can neither defend it nor respond to any questions presented about the topic.

I'm thinking that Christians outnumber atheists because Christians offer immortality while atheists offer no such thing. Do you have any thoughts on that idea?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

That you are not willing to engage in honest discussion.

Then we have no more to discuss.

But, here you are.

Responding to that post, but not the many other more challenging ones.

I get it, even if you don't.
Tom

Tom, is it possible that the fear of hell is so great that more people try to escape that fear via Christian belief than people who "risk hell" as atheists?

 

[pood]

That you are not willing to engage in honest discussion.

Then we have no more to discuss.

But, here you are.

Responding to that post, but not the many other more challenging ones.

I get it, even if you don't.
Tom

Tom, is it possible that the fear of hell is so great that more people try to escape that fear via Christian belief than people who "risk hell" as atheists?

This is an example of your arguments that you self-flatter yourself are so awesome and unanswerable. Just think about how silly this is. You only fear hell IF you are ALREADY a Christian (or perhaps some Abrahamic variant thereof). No one is going to BECOME a Chrstian to ESCAPE the fear of hell, when Christianity is the doctine that causes the fear in the first place!

 

[pood]

Sounds a lot like the Pascal’s Wager silliness, actually. Believe in God because if you don’t you risk hell. The problem with the wager of course is that this line of reasoning only goes through if you believe in the Christian god in the first place, If you don’t, you don’t feel you are risking anything, obviously.

 

[Swammerdami]

When someone says "I don't see the relevance", it does not means the person has no interest. It means you should explain the relevance. As the OP-writer, it's on you to clarify your point when it is not understood.

I explained everything in the OP. If anybody thinks that that doesn't interest them, then they can move on. That's what I do. There are buttons on my mouse that I can use to exit a boring thread.

Until your OP, I had never seen nor heard of anyone asking atheists "Why are you in a minority?" or "Why do you think you are in a minority?". Your OP does not explain the relevance of the question or why anyone would even think such a question was worthwhile.

I tried to probe this idea in my response, suggesting that 49% was almost as large a number as 51%. He claimed to not understand this arithmetic principle at all, and doubled-down repeating "majority" and "minority" as though they were magic or sacred words.

I (tried to hijack the thread? and) asked whether this peculiar understanding was most often seen among Americans, or perhaps among Anglophones more generally. Has anyone addressed this, more interesting question?

But if that question is relevant and worthwhile, then certainly the fact that non-Christians vastly outnumber Christians in the world prompts the similarly relevant and worthwhile question

Why are you Christians in a minority?

I'm painting with a broad brush here, but I think you'll find that the Anglophonic(?) arithmetic misconceptions correlate well with an obsession that only the USA matters. The confusion might be rooted in Americans' simplistic understanding of democracy. E.g. if 51% of Americans believe that access to guns should be unfettered, then this is a reflection and proof of some Divine Truth (and of course the views of non-American electorates are irrelevant). The 49% are lost sheep that need to be coaxed back in to the flock.

In any event, I don't imagine that lectures on arithmetic or discussion of the views of non-Americans will influence the faithful.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Ahah! This is a sure sign you are losing the argument. A very superb poster and master debater once said this:

...an ad hominem fallacy. It's well known that a good clue that somebody knows he's losing an argument is when he goes on the personal attack.

That's correct. If I feel physically threatened by a deranged person I'm debating, then I make a hasty exit warning others about the danger. It's better for me to lose a debate than to lose my life.

And I didn't fail to notice your lack of shock at the death-threat revelation.

That isn't a rational conclusion by you since we discussed this in the past and it was very clearly not a death threat. Yet, there you are, claiming it is and not addressing the argument. It is clear to everyone reading that in the free marketplace of ideas, your idea is quickly losing in the competition to other ideas because you can neither defend it nor respond to any questions presented about the topic.

I'm thinking that Christians outnumber atheists because Christians offer immortality while atheists offer no such thing.

When you consider the Universe, Christians likely do not outnumber atheists.

Do you have any thoughts on that idea?

I expressed my thoughts already and it is very, very clear that a major contributing factor to religious affiliations is historical coincidence of colonialism and imperialism followed by continued undue influence exerted on children (and adults) in formative years. What isn't clear at all is what OTHER factors necessarily influence people to have religiosity. You can try to claim it is genetic, but then what about China? How have you measured these variables and how much is responsible for what? I don't see any work at all, just a narrative by you and sticking to that narrative when challenged. If you were really a truth seeker, then you would put your hypothesis to a scientific test that necessarily defeats it if it is wrong. How would you go about that?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

When you consider the Universe, Christians likely do not outnumber atheists.

Unfortunately, we can't poll the whole universe to know who is what. Since we only have demographics for earth, I think it's best to stick with earth to check how the numbers of Christians and atheists stack up here.

Do you have any thoughts on that idea (the promise of immortality and how it affects the numbers of Christians and atheists)?

I expressed my thoughts already...

I was being distracted at that time.

...and it is very, very clear that a major contributing factor to religious affiliations is historical coincidence of colonialism and imperialism followed by continued undue influence exerted on children (and adults) in formative years.

But how might we explain any "historical coincidence" regarding the relative numbers of Christians and atheists? Are Christians just lucky that they've achieved great numbers?

If you were really a truth seeker, then you would put your hypothesis to a scientific test that necessarily defeats it if it is wrong. How would you go about that?

Are you referring to the explanations I proposed in the OP?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

When you consider the Universe, Christians likely do not outnumber atheists.

Unfortunately, we can't poll the whole universe to know who is what. Since we only have demographics for earth, I think it's best to stick with earth to check how the numbers of Christians and atheists stack up here.

But according to Gospels and other documents in the Christian religion, Jesus never traveled to other planets. Nor did any alleged sons and daughters of an alleged Adam and Even travel off to other planets and then have their sins forgiven. So by definition the aliens there are not Christians since the alleged Man-Deity did not die for any aliens' sins.

Do you have any thoughts on that idea (the promise of immortality and how it affects the numbers of Christians and atheists)?

I expressed my thoughts already...

I was being distracted at that time.

...and it is very, very clear that a major contributing factor to religious affiliations is historical coincidence of colonialism and imperialism followed by continued undue influence exerted on children (and adults) in formative years.

But how might we explain any "historical coincidence" regarding the relative numbers of Christians and atheists? Are Christians just lucky that they've achieved great numbers?

Did you even read the sentence you just responded to, because the answer is there. Christians achieved great numbers the same way Muslims did--through force and then they sustained this through children of the converted by promoting an idea of not asking questions and not being rational (faith). There is an incredible pressure still and atheists are looked down on. That is how it has been maintained in the world's religions. When societies become more free, the atheist population rises.

If you were really a truth seeker, then you would put your hypothesis to a scientific test that necessarily defeats it if it is wrong. How would you go about that?

Are you referring to the explanations I proposed in the OP?

You need to test your hypotheses by conducting scientific experiments that would show they are false, if they are.

 

[bilby]

My concern is that your question is intended to shift attention away from the fact that many of the atheists here fear the implications of their being outnumbered by Christians.

Hmm. I wonder why anyone would have such a fear.

https://iidb.org/threads/roe-v-wade-is-on-deck.24051/

https://iidb.org/threads/the-us-supreme-court-vs-church-state-separation.26254/

https://iidb.org/threads/the-continuing-problem-of-school-prayer.27394/

https://iidb.org/threads/texas-to-r...nts-in-all-public-schools-by-next-year.27285/

https://iidb.org/threads/wv-public-...l-during-school-hours-for-the-students.25667/

 

[bilby]

I'm thinking that Christians outnumber atheists because Christians offer immortality while atheists offer no such thing. Do you have any thoughts on that idea?

Indeed, you may well be right.

Of course, smart people don't fall for confidence tricks in which they are offered rewards that don't actually exist.

So we would also draw the (also unsurprising) inference that dumb people outnumber smart people.

I got an email the other day; A Nigerian Prince is offering me $1,000,000,000. My boss is offering me a 2% pay rise. Clearly, the more popular response should be to tell the boss to stick his paltry pay rise, and go with the Nigerian. It's very obviously the better offer.