Interesting news: why faith is becoming more and more popular

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

Faith is on the rise and 84% of the global population identifies with a religious group. what does it mean for the future?

To read more:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/aug/27/religion-why-is-faith-growing-and-what-happens-next?CMP=share_btn_tw


We regularly read article predicting/reporting/that religion is dying out, and that as the population becomes more aware, theism will inevitably fade away. This article paints a somewhat different picture.

[msongs]

1. it means more hate and wars probably nt

[guillaumeb]

2. Too reductionistic by far. eom

[KPN]

101. That's about right. Maybe some good too,

but on balance ...

[trotsky]

3. LMAO

It's fun to watch you desperately spin news to be favorable to your viewpoint.

As usual, the devil is in the details. Religion is in severe decline in areas that have greater stability and economic prosperity. This is not only bad news for religion (since it thrives on pain and suffering, it's going to end up encouraging it), but bad news for humanity as a result.

Of course the killer point is right in the article:

It’s mainly down to births and deaths, rather than religious conversion.

Religion is not winning minds and capturing hearts - it's relying on indoctrination. This is very bad news indeed for religion, that it cannot compete fairly in the marketplace of ideas and must instead be drilled into the minds of children before they can question it.

But you go ahead and rejoice and rub it in all those evil atheists' faces, gil. They'll still be laughing at you, however.

[guillaumeb]

5. Keep spinning your narrative.

But excessive spinning can lead to dizziness.

[trotsky]

7. What do you think about the specific sentence I quoted, gil?

Try to address the facts rather than insult me. Can you?

[guillaumeb]

11. The article states that the population of theists is growing.

And it further states that even among those who do not belong to any organized religion, large numbers are spiritual.

[trotsky]

14. What do you think about the specific sentence I quoted, gil?

It explains WHY.

Don't you think that's worth talking about?

Or are you afraid to?

[guillaumeb]

16. No, it does not.

[trotsky]

17. What do you think about the specific sentence I quoted, gil?

"No" isn't dialog.

Explain your reasoning, if you dare. I bet you're afraid to try, though.

[trotsky]

47. What do you think about the specific sentence I quoted, gil?

You've remained busy on this thread but haven't answered this question at all.

I'm very curious to know why. I have my suspicions.

[trotsky]

140. What do you think about the specific sentence I quoted, gil?

Still waiting for your reply. Hoping you've had some time to think about it over the past week.

[MineralMan]

141. I think an answer will not be coming, somehow.

[Lordquinton]

142. It's amazing how a one sentence off hand remark

Will get a whole subthread from him, but a researched fact based post is always ignored, without fail.

[trotsky]

144. And the one sentence comes from the article that HE HIMSELF posted.

guillaumeb has proven to be quite the comedian, engaging in slapstick with himself for everyone's amusement.

[Lordquinton]

150. Everyone can see it

I guess that's just what he wants the group to know him as.

[trotsky]

153. What do you think about the specific sentence I quoted, gil?

Still waiting. Are you afraid to answer?

[trotsky]

154. What do you think about the specific sentence I quoted, gil?

I just realized you still haven't replied. You've had plenty of time to think of an answer, haven't you?

[trotsky]

155. What do you think about the specific sentence I quoted, gil?

Still waiting for an answer.

[MineralMan]

156. You'll wait a long time for Guy (French pronunciation).

[trotsky]

157. I'm going to keep asking.

It's a great exchange to keep kicked, so that visitors to the forum will see how interested in dialog guillaumeb actually is.

[MineralMan]

158. Yeah, I know.

I just wanted you to know that someone's paying attention.

A Guy hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest.

I heard that somewhere...

[guillaumeb]

159. They might actually come to a different conclusion.

One related to your own behavior.

[trotsky]

160. If they have a modicum of intelligence, they won't.

They'll see your total unwillingness to address a point and recognize your insincerity when you call for dialog.

So, how about you answer the question?

[trotsky]

161. What do you think about the specific sentence I quoted, gil?

I'd love to know.

Show you are interested in actual dialog. Answer the question.

[trotsky]

162. What do you think about the specific sentence I quoted, gil?

Still waiting.

[trotsky]

163. What do you think about the specific sentence I quoted, gil? n/t

[trotsky]

164. What do you think about the specific sentence I quoted, gil? n/t

[bitterross]

18. Spinning it? Not really. Pretty obvious logic.

The article clearly makes a correlation between birth rates among the orthodox or ultra-religious and the growth of belief.

The Evangelicals know this. It is why the Quiverfull movement is all about the Jon and Kate Plus 8 stuff. They want to "Go forth and multiply" in order to win the religious wars against the other religions.

[guillaumeb]

21. The article notes your observation.

And your observation does not contradict the title.

[qazplm135]

28. So if an article was titled...Earth is gaining dogs

then in the body, we learned that several places on the planet are significantly losing dogs, but other places are gaining dogs, your only takeaway would be, ah the Earth is gaining dogs...nothing else to consider?

You wouldn't want to know why some places were losing a significant number of dogs...you wouldn't consider that only some places are seeing a gain in dogs...you wouldn't care about any patterns tied to education, political systems, relative freedoms, development or anything like that, you'd just say...more dogs?

So, in short, you are a rather incurious sort of person I take it then. Kind of the George Bush of this internet forum.

[trotsky]

32. "Kind of the George Bush of this internet forum."

[guillaumeb]

40. If you read the article,

you know what was discussed.

If you did not, perhaps you could read it.

[qazplm135]

42. I read it

Including past the title...protip for you for the future.

[guillaumeb]

53. Auditioning for a choir?

Or do you reflexively insult?

[MineralMan]

56. Your "choir" nonsense, again?

Please stop doing that, OK? Thanks.

[guillaumeb]

57. Are you the appointed spokesperson?

If not, you might allow others to answer for themselves.

Thank you.

[qazplm135]

59. but how can I?

You think I'm part of a "choir" and thus can't speak for myself...just like you think I comment without reading something.

[MineralMan]

61. I am the spokesperson for myself.

When you post in public, you can expect the public to respond.

Twice in this thread, you have asked members of this Group if they were "auditioning for the choir." We know what you mean by that. It's a common expression that you use frequently to question someone who says something you dislike.

Twice. In this thread. And both times to members of the Group who have lower post counts than most. I find that kind of snark to be offensive. This is not your domain. It belongs to all of us here. Insulting people in that general sort of snarky way is not appropriate.

And yes, that is my opinion.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

83. Since you (guillaumeb) seem to think that a person making a simple request is appointed spokesperson

... I will make a simple request.

Please respond with logic and reference to what was written rather than reflexive insults.

[pangaia]

79. Hey, MM. You're a very smart guy. Why do you waste time even engaging with this fellow?

On second thought, why did I even read any part of this OP??

[ret5hd]

92. Oh please...they are both the same person.

[pangaia]

96. Could have fooled me...

[MineralMan]

97. It's part of my de-stressing routine.

[pangaia]

98. Well, you DID fool me... Didn;t you? OR.....

Now I don;t know WHAT to believe. YOU" or one of the other guys .

Which may BOTH be you for all I know !! LOL

And does it matter?

I mean, which is more serious for me? figuring out who is who?
OR figuring out how many timpani and what sizes and in what set-up order to use for playing the STAR WARS SUITE , which I have actually NEVER played DUH !!! (Probably the only timpanist on the planet who hasn't played. (Fortunately)

The standard 32". 29", 26", 23" " Add an extra 32" for the IMPERIAL MARCH because the Gs will sound better on a 32 than a 29 ? Add a 29" for all those loud C pitches in the entire piece, which would sound fine on a 26 " with KALFO calf heads.. BUT, I have to use plastic heads, so a 29 " would sound a little better... Plus an extra 32 OR 29 would eliminate a few quick pedal tuning changes

I think I'll stick with the STAR WARS problem...

[MineralMan]

99. One can never have too many tympani.

It's very tedious to have to retune with the pedals during a piece, I think. You always look stupid with your ear down near the head, tapping lightly trying to change pitches.

Just once, I wish for 12 tympani. Yes...

[pangaia]

100. HA HA HA !!! Some people think we are smelling the heads....

With 12 timpani I am too old to remember which one to hit..

Actually In STAR WARS, many of the changes come fast enough, there is no time to check by ear. Tuning gauges are set to pitches (sort of), and one just makes changes with pedals 'on the fly." You can look at the gauges while moving the pedal, but really better just to know by feel where the pitches are..Plus the gauges are just for getting 'very close."

Here's a pretty good example, if you're interested, although you can't really see him moving the pedals,

He uses just 4 drums, BUT has VERY GOOD drums and good calf heads.
At the :57 mark he is playing the bass line - 3 descending notes, (repeated)on the same drum-(boom,boom.boom.boom,boom boom,,etc) Bb, A,A,G,G,on 29" in front of him-- then plays the low F on the 32" to his far left.. You can see where he changes drums to the low F-- Then, while he plays that low F, with left hand, he changes the 29" from G back up to Bb. and plays it with right hand.

This is okay. Anybody can do this, but it would usually sound better, no "bleed through", if say alternating on 2 drums and change one drum whilst playing the other...

&t=37s

[MineralMan]

102. I'm not actually a percussionist. My experience with tympani

is limited. I got roped into borrowing two from my high school for a performance of Handel's Messiah. I had fooled around with them before in the band room, just because I fooled around with every possible instrument I could get my hands on. So, I had to do a crash course in tuning them, since the choir director wanted them used in two different sections of the Messiah, in different keys.

That meant that I had to change the pitch on the fly, so I learned about putting my ear near the head as I operated the pedal. I love watching tympanists play and work on their array of instruments!

[qazplm135]

58. I return insults

in kind. Like when you try to subtly insult by saying I hadn't read it and thus didn't know what I was talking about which you will now assert you intended no such thing even though there's no other possible logical reading of your response.

Your game is tired and weak, step it up.

[guillaumeb]

60. You first replied in #28,

where you called me the George Bush of the internet. So when you speak of returning insults, what do you mean?

[Lordquinton]

62. It means that even newbies in this group have your number

your words speak for themselves.

[qazplm135]

66. it was an analogy

and it wasn't my first reply to you.

That was post number 4. Then there was another at post number 26.

I mean I don't want to insult your knowledge of how numbers work...at any rate, you were already being condescending in your reply post 4, so I don't feel any real compunction to be polite to someone who isn't really here to have a discussion, thinks anyone who disagrees with him "hasn't read the material," and whose responses are so chock full of ignoring points, non sequiturs, and haughtiness that one wonders if you aren't a bot.

I mean an impressively programmed bot for sure...

[guillaumeb]

73. Speaking of condescension,

your post is quite harmonious with the choir.

As to the question of reading the article, numerous posters have admitted to only reading the title.

[Lordquinton]

80. You prove his point

And he's right, new to the group and can already tell you don't respond to actual content.

[guillaumeb]

84. He admitted to being a long time member.

In this thread. Speaking of reading.

[Lordquinton]

88. He said he's been here a while

not being a long time member. Perhaps June feels like a while?

In any case, you expertly demonstrated his point.

[qazplm135]

95. Tired. Boring.

Don't you have any other go-to dismissals?

You know, just for kicks? To change things up?

Do you win a free sub if you say choir ten times in a thread?

[Lordquinton]

89. Or like Global Warming

We have neutral, or even positive ice cover at times, but when you look into the details you find that places that have been covered in ice are losing it at a drastic rate, and the new ice is often temporary, and of a substandard quality that can't stick around past a year or two.

Also like climate change deniers, looking at one line from a study, then obfuscating their source, and sticking to a firm script, not engaging the factual points brought up, rather attack the person directly.

Very good analogy you made.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

77. Woosh. The numeric logic went right over your head. So of course your ignore the key point. . . nt

[TwistOneUp]

10. You know you're right on target in the Religion department ...

When guillameb trashes your post.

Kudos for that post!

[trotsky]

15. Ha! Thanks! n/t

[guillaumeb]

41. Auditioning for the tiny choir?

[trotsky]

46. Knock off the personal attacks, gil.

There is no "choir." Your nonsense just annoys a lot of people. Rather than come to grips with that fact, you postulate ridiculous conspiracy theories and smear everyone who disagrees with you.

[guillaumeb]

54. Ah yes, the personal attacks.

That one is too funny to merit any further response.

[marylandblue]

93. I've never personally attacked you, but the choir thing is nonsense and you should drop it.

[guillaumeb]

108. I will,

when it no longer applies.

[MineralMan]

110. Or when Hell freezes over, eh?

Check in with your silent buddies. They may have suggestions for you. Or not.

[guillaumeb]

111. Check in with the closed Facebook group.

Or not.

[MineralMan]

113. I don't know of any closed Facebook group.

Which one are you talking about. I use Facebook, but not for political discussions. What's the link to the group you're talking about, please?

[trotsky]

145. This secret one that we never mention on DU!

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1854317644790870/

[MineralMan]

146. While that looks interesting, my Facebook time is very limited,

and I have a business page I have to manage there. Thanks for the info, though!

[trotsky]

147. OK, just don't share that link with anyone!

It's super-duper-top-secret!

[MineralMan]

148. Okey-Dokey! Mum's the Word.

[MineralMan]

51. Oh, for pete's sake!

Snark? Why?

[guillaumeb]

55. Ironic indeed.

[qazplm135]

67. I mean at this point...

it feels like all of the choirs met up with all the acapella singers and then that group got together with the karaoke singers...

well let's just say the "choir" doesn't seem so tiny when it comes to you.

[Mariana]

69. Oh, yes, the choir. Yawn.

Next he'll start babbling on about a silly Commandment that he made up - one that he himself violates regularly.

You know, Gil has told us several times that he receives numerous personal messages asking him to continue doing what he is doing in this group, and praising his efforts here.

Of course, none of this vast horde of groupies ever actually posts here in support of his pronouncements.

[MineralMan]

70. Well, occasionally one shows up to bolster the message.

Usually, it's just a brief appearance, though.

[Mariana]

71. That is true.

I wasn't counting posters who've been banned multiple times.

[guillaumeb]

74. The toxic atmosphere does inhibit some.

And encourage others.

[Voltaire2]

103. What toxic atmosphere?

[Mariana]

105. Some carpeting is known to emit toxic fumes.

So, there is that.

[guillaumeb]

109. There are none so blind......eom

[MineralMan]

112. Guill, you need some new material, I think.

Just saying...

[guillaumeb]

114. My thoughts exactly,

especially when reading your many posts about things.

[Voltaire2]

117. So can you explain why you think there is a toxic

atmosphere in here?

[guillaumeb]

119. That comment has been made a number of times in the last 2 years.

By a few posters who do not generally post here.

Do I contribute to it, with my sometimes sarcastic remarks?

Of course.

[Voltaire2]

120. You made that comment in post 74.

Now you seem to be attributing it to other people.

So this forum is toxic because of your sarcastic remarks?

[guillaumeb]

121. I made an observation,

one that is shared by others here.

And you, do you ever treat others disrespectfully here?

[Voltaire2]

122. Just so I understand:

You and unnamed others claim that this forum has a toxic atmosphere.

You provided an example of that toxicity: your sarcasm.

Before we move on I would appreciate your confirmation of your position as outlined above.

[guillaumeb]

123. I asked a question of you.

And your attempted framing is noted, as is your refusal to answer a simple question.

[Voltaire2]

125. I've attempted to repeat your position

as you wrote it. If I’ve misstated it please describe how.

[guillaumeb]

126. And my question remains unanswered. Interesting.

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/121866

[guillaumeb]

127. And my question remains unanswered.

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/121866

[Voltaire2]

129. ok once again we are done.

Have a nice day.

Sorry you can’t even agree that you wrote what you wrote.

[guillaumeb]

130. Sorry that you cannot acknowledge the obvious,

or answer a question about what you do here.

[Lordquinton]

143. Speaking of unanswered questions

How about you start with this one?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218291454#post140

[guillaumeb]

128. And more toxicity demonstrated:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218123356

[Mariana]

124. People who disagree with Gil are permitted to post here.

That makes it toxic, you see.

[Voltaire2]

132. Apparently it is toxic to repeat what he said

and ask if that is what he said.

[Mariana]

134. I've posted this before.

This is the kind of "dialogue" I think Gil and and his devotees want to see here. "The human mind etc." was an actual OP in this group.

OP: "The human mind is a pale reflection of the Creator..."
Good: "You're absolutely right!"
Good: "That's so profound!"
Good: "Praise the Lord!"

These kinds of replies are unacceptable:

OP: "The human mind is a pale reflection of the Creator..."
Bad: "Please describe the creator."
Bad: "Whose human mind?"
Bad: "How do you know this is true?"

There are groups on DU that were set up specifically so religious people can have the first kind of conversation, and avoid the second type altogether. This one group permits the second kind, and apparently Gil and his legions of fans consider one to be one too many.

[MineralMan]

118. None of my posts are required reading.

Reading is optional.

[MineralMan]

106. Yes. I thought I noticed an unpleasant sulfurous chemical odor when I

visited my DU Mail inbox this morning. However, the air has cleared somewhat since I opened a couple of windows and turned on the exhaust fan there.

[NeoGreen]

24. I wonder if the above line of thinking is the result of the new...

...'Truth isn't Truth' doctrine of alternative facts?

If so, 'Sad'.

[trotsky]

25. It's scary how many rhetorical tools from the MAGA toolset gil likes to use.

Whataboutism, fake news, you're being mean to me, etc.

[Lordquinton]

43. That's just like, your opinion

Way to push a narrative and frame

[Major Nikon]

45. Yet another train wreck of a thread

Precipitated by the OP's failure to read his own source material, as if the conflation of "identifies with a religious group" and "faith" had any merit to begin with.

[trotsky]

48. Time for this one again

[NeoGreen]

50. That poor turtle...

...you're just cruel, letting the poor thing fall over and over and over again.

You should know by now, it will never learn.

The Scorpion and the Frog
A scorpion asks a frog to carry it across a river. The frog hesitates, afraid of being stung, but the scorpion argues that if it did so, they would both drown. Considering this, the frog agrees, but midway across the river the scorpion does indeed sting the frog, dooming them both. When the frog asks the scorpion why, the scorpion replied "I can't help it. It's in my nature to sting".

[qazplm135]

4. From your link

"The short answer is religion is on the wane in western Europe and North America, and it’s growing everywhere else."

So it's not becoming "more and more popular" here, it's becoming less popular.

And the reason seems pretty clear...Islam and Hinduism are the fastest growing religions, and they are, again, according to your linked article, having more babies than Christians and non-religious people.

So basically, religion is growing in the ME and Africa (a large part of that due to Islam), and it is growing in China (and one assumes Russia) because both of those governments have moved from an atheistic stance to one of more (somewhat) religious freedom.

I don't think anyone said "religion is dying out." But it does certainly seem true that the more educated a population is, and the more culturally and politically free it is, the more likely that it will have a larger population of non-believers.

[guillaumeb]

8. Welcome to DU.

The article is addressing the global growth of the population of theists.

As to the many varieties of religion is dying posts, they are easily searchable by looking in the religion group list of posts.

[qazplm135]

26. welcome? I've been here awhile

and the article addresses quite a few things.

[TlalocW]

36. Oh, hey, you're new here

Thanks for joining! Let us know if we can help you in any way.

TlalocW

[guillaumeb]

39. A belated welcome.

[Mariana]

30. No one in this group has said or implied that religion is dying out.

Gil is bearing false witness against his neighbors. Again.

[pangaia]

78. Trust me. Religious freedom, of any sort, does NOT exist in China.

[marylandblue]

6. Developed countries are going one way, underdeveloped countries are going the other

Also, those underdevloped countries already have religious systems that encourage large families and discourage girls from getting education. Educate the population, improve living conditions and emancipate women, then 3 big drivers of religion in those countries will be cut off Don't do those things, then yes, people will look for religion to make them feel better in their misery

[trotsky]

19. Shhh, gil has made it clear this thread is no place for facts and analysis. n/t

[zipplewrath]

9. Geography

"The short answer is religion is on the wane in western Europe and North America, and it’s growing everywhere else."

We generally see that organized religion participation is "dying" in the US. World wide is another story, although it was interesting to read that despite Muslim growing world wide, in Europe they are converting in significant numbers to Christianity.

"...and in recent years there has been growing anecdotal evidence of Muslim refugees converting to Christianity in Europe."

[guillaumeb]

12. Perhaps they are converting to escape the Islamophobia

that is rampant among western Europeans?

[zipplewrath]

13. More likely

I'd guess it's more likely a case of "me too-ism". They were Muslims because their neighbors were. They convert to Christianity because their new neighbors are.

[Voltaire2]

20. Except that at least in Western and Northern

Europe their neighbors are more likely to have no religion at all

[zipplewrath]

22. Organized

Organized religion, but they'll exhibit Christian tendencies such as holiday recognition. It'll also be common in literature and art.

[Voltaire2]

23. Indeed. It wasn't a serious point.

[qazplm135]

27. or

it's just following the human practice of, well, forever, that sees immigrants adopt the dominant religion of the area they have immigrated to.

[MineralMan]

29. Where the population is growing faster, more people are born into religions.

It's really simple, as the article makes clear. Did you read the whole thing, guillaumeb? Apparently not.

In western nations, where populations are stable or declining, there has been a decrease in the percentage of those who claim a religion.

The exception is China, where some religions are increasing in numbers through conversion.

So, more religion in some places, and less in others. Find the reason for that, and you'll understand. It's actually right there in the long article from which you copied and pasted a tiny, two sentence excerpt.

We can read, guillaumeb. Many don't bother, but some of us do. Why just post two sentences, when you are allowed to post up to four paragraphs? Could it be because the entire article does not support your premise? I think so.

[trotsky]

33. As usual for gil, he read the headline, and assumed.

I'm glad he does this, so he can be humiliated over and over again by the very article he promoted.

[MineralMan]

34. I am constantly puzzled by that phenomenon.

I don't copy and paste from long editorial opinion pieces very often, but if I do, I read the article thoroughly to make sure it supports the premise I claim it supports. I'd be horribly embarrassed if I pasted a couple of lines from something and then it was pointed out that the article disproved my own point.

It seems pretty common that I follow a link posted here, only to discover that the article linked to says nothing like what the poster claims. I can't imagine letting myself be embarrassed like that.

[TrogL]

31. I'm wondering if more people are reporting because they feel they have to

It’s reaching the point where it’s a crime not to be an Evangelical Christian”

[MineralMan]

35. Not so much, really. The rise in reported "nones" here in the US and in

several other countries would seem to indicate that is not the case.

[saidsimplesimon]

37. I don't place my faith in

any religious ideology. This survey doesn't reflect your 84%, it claims 89% believe in a god. Now, if you drill down, religious organizations' support is on the decline.

Gallop Poll as of 2017, measuring the importance of religion in the US and a breakdown of denominations. It also takes a look at the importance of religion in someone’s life. It appears that while the number of “believers” has declined slightly in recent years, they still hold a slim majority of 54%.

http://news.gallup.com/poll/1690/religion.aspx

Another poll from 2016 takes a look at a single poll question: “Do you believe in god?”

http://news.gallup.com/poll/193271/americans-believe-god.aspx
…snip

by Frank Newport
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
• 89% of Americans say they believe in God
• In a separate poll, 79% say "believe in God" and 10% "not sure"
• All measures of belief in God show declines from previous decades

PRINCETON, N.J. -- About nine in 10 Americans say they believe in God, and one in 10 say they do not. However, when presented with more than a "yes or no" option, about eight in 10 say they believe and one in 10 say they aren't sure. Belief in God, regardless of how the question is phrased to Americans, is down from levels in past decades.

This Pew Poll looks at how religion influenced the 2016 primaries. Obviously religion is not as important among Republicans as evangelicals once claimed.

http://www.pewforum.org/2016/01/27/religion-and-the-2016-presidential-candidates/
1. Religion and the 2016 presidential candidates
Except for Trump, GOP candidates generally viewed as more religious than ......

[Major Nikon]

49. How progressive a region is correlates inversely to in the influence of organized religion

Meanwhile how much influence organized religion has over government directly correlates to the oppression of minority groups, including religious ones. Kinda funny how the OP imagines this as good news.

[gibraltar72]

38. I call Bullshit on this.

[Bretton Garcia]

44. Christians like Guil, popularized "faith"

Last edited Wed Aug 29, 2018, 04:43 AM - Edit history (1)

An ecumenist idea.. Which encouraged all religions; but among them, interestingly, Islam. The fastest growing religion.

Likely Christian ecumenical support for all religions, its supporting all " faiths," has encouraged, strengthened, Islam.

So ironically? It could be that the. Guil-ian, Christian championing of faith, is assisting the triumph of Islam.

[MineralMan]

52. All religions good! No religion bad!

That seems to be the message. Faith in anything is apparently better than insisting on evidence, according to some people.

[Comatose Sphagetti]

63. The reason religion may be gaining ground

is because fear is rising.

[guillaumeb]

64. So religion provides comfort?

That might be one reason indeed.

[Comatose Sphagetti]

65. I think so.

nt

[qazplm135]

68. sure

so does fattening foods, sports, movies, video games, TV, working out, sex, punching something really hard...

[marylandblue]

72. There's a reason we celebrate religious holidays the way we do

We visit our families, eat a big meal with them, watch TV with the adults, play football with the kids then get into a nasty argument and go home.

[guillaumeb]

75. If you do not understand the difference,

that explains your response.

[Lordquinton]

81. Remember this post

next time you bring up Nationalism, tribalism, and whatever else you like to bring up when religion is being discussed in the religion group.

[qazplm135]

94. that you think there is a difference

explains yours.

[Voltaire2]

104. No it's demographics.

Religiosity is increasing in countries that have not developed far enough to start reducing their birth rate.

[dameatball]

76. I don't know. Sorry about the turtle.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

82. Your OP title contradicts the article title & gets it wrong. They do not mean the same thing.

Article title: Why Faith is Growing.

Your title: Why Faith is Becoming More Popular.

Nothing in the article makes a claim that faith over is becoming more popular, i.e. claiming a higher percentage of the population. It makes no comparisons with previous years or decades statistics.

The article only identifies birth rates as a factor and extrapolates on that basis.

Wider reading reveals that though numbers of faithful may be increasing it has a declining percentage of population, especially outside of the developing world.

Growth does not equate to popularity.

Increases in numerical totals do not equate to increases in proportion.

[guillaumeb]

85. The title at the link is as I have written it.

And yes, it is extrapolation based on current statistics.

[mahina]

86. I've started going to church since I found a liberal church. First time since I was 12.

I go every Sunday that I can and find it brings me great comfort. They do good work, for real, for homeless, and others.

It's a great joy.

N=1

[Bernardo de La Paz]

87. Ok, at the page, but the URL has a different more accurate title. But you don't address any points.

What is the point of discussing with you when you don't address a poster's points? In response to a post about increases in numbers and increases in proportions, you state (restate) a single snapshot proportion.

Try reading what I wrote, carefully, if you actually wish to try to convince anybody. You are not succeeding, which is the main point of the article: birthrates are driving the numbers higher.

[Lordquinton]

91. Get comfortable

it might be a while before your factually based questions get answered. I've been waiting years on some.

[guillaumeb]

107. You made a claim that I misrepresented the title.

Speaking of reading carefully, a brief glance at the article will show that I posted the actual title.


And if the total number of theists is increasing, the articles about the decline of religion seem to be more wishful thinking than anything else.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

115. Again, you eschew simple math. . . . nt

[guillaumeb]

137. And the title?

[qazplm135]

135. What's your purpose?

It certainly isn't to change minds or influence people, because your approach is more likely to do the opposite by far.

So what is your purpose? Is this more for self-conviction?

[MineralMan]

149. It keeps him busy. I think that's it.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

90. I think that's wishful thinking.

religion used to be a comfort and guide..not after 2000. Especially 911 and the gop co-opting christianity.

[Mariana]

116. It's true that the number of religious people in the world is increasing.

Especially in those places where birth control is prohibited by (religious or religiously motivated) law, and in those places where it's extremely dangerous to reject religion. There are many countries in which one or both of those things are true, and in those places, the number of religious people is increasing. Gil apparently considers this to be a positive thing.

[demigoddess]

131. people have always joined a religion to have a community

of people they feel safe among. Nowadays people are probably feeling less safe and so need that community feeling. But you are right that religion has almost always led to wars and slaughtering of people. If you don't know that, you are not aware of history or have not gone to church. 6th grade, a man at the church I was going to talked about killing someone because she was an atheist. My son went to a church and a bully threatened to beat him up. etc, etc etc etc, etc, etc

[guillaumeb]

133. There are many reasons advanced to justify war.

Religion is one of the many.

[demigoddess]

139. so many wars were fought over the fact that the religions did not agree on a point.

whether or not the recognized the Pope as supreme authority etc. Mary Tudor burned many protestants for much the same reason. Many protestants were killed in Paris just because they were protestants. When JFK was running for POTUS, one church I heard was saying "If JFK got elected the Pope would run the country". No deaths involved or war, just political stupidity based on religious ideas.

[Maxheader]

136. You have to walk the talk..

For any religion to be viable...

[guillaumeb]

138. Action versus talk?

Agreed.

[samir.g]

151. christianity is in decline. Islam is ascendant.

Give it a hundred years or so.

[guillaumeb]

152. Let us continue this discussion in 100 years.

Or so.