10 MN to 720 MN: Christian Demographics in Africa.

[Thumpalumpacus]

He was brilliance in action, and not just about god and stuff. Why Orwell Matters is a great book that is criminally overlooked.

I have his collection of essays "Arguably."  One of them is about how world political currents of that time almost caused Animal Farm to never see the light of day.  The guy could turn a phrase like no other.

I'm off to Amazon as we write.

EtA: Done, arrives on the 19th.

[Minimalist]

@ Patty,

Is this the one you were talking about?

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/156085...J756553N3A

First, the closer scrutiny the Pauline texts receive, the clearer it becomes (and by now it seems mighty clear indeed) that the epistles present us with many of the same challenges the Gospels did. They appear to be filled with the same variety of redactional seams, non-sequiturs, and double-audience rhetorical tricks we find in the Gospels. In short, the historical Jesus problem replicates itself in the case of Paul. The epistles reveal themselves to the discerning reader to have exactly the same sort of limitations as the Gospels do: both are collections of fragments and pericopae contributed and fabricated by authors and communities of very different theological leanings. Both present barriers to the access of the individuals under whose names they appear, not open doors.

[jerry mcmasters]

I have his collection of essays "Arguably."  One of them is about how world political currents of that time almost caused Animal Farm to never see the light of day.  The guy could turn a phrase like no other.

I'm off to Amazon as we write.

EtA: Done, arrives on the 19th.

I don't read much fiction and he was a literary critic so there are large chunks of the book that I can't make heads or tails of, but you will like the history stuff.  He has a great essay on the importance of John Brown that really changed my way of thinking about him.  After you read it you're like damn, that's so obvious how didn't I think of that?!

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm off to Amazon as we write.

EtA: Done, arrives on the 19th.

I don't read much fiction and he was a literary critic so there are large chunks of the book that I can't make heads or tails of, but you will like the history stuff.  He has a great essay on the importance of John Brown that really changed my way of thinking about him.  After you read it you're like damn, that's so obvious how didn't I think of that?!

Hitchens was the only one of the so-called Four Horsemen whose ideas were fairly original, in my estimation. I'm looking forward to reading this book you've recommended, especially that you mention he addresses fiction as well. I'm not a big fan of fiction either, but I get how some works of fiction can change mindsets and am interested in reading his views on it.

[SYZ]

Why does this fucking @Xavier troll get fed so well everywhere it goes?!? Post after post, thread after thread, until it dominates the recent post listings. Bad christer arguments are all over the internet. Why must we entertain them here?

I reported Xavier yesterday, and requested his banning.  I note
that has yet to happen, and am left wondering why no moderator
or admin person has done so, or, alternatively PM'd me to let me
know why my request has (apparently) been ignored and/or not
responded to one way or the another.

See Rule #7...

7) No Deliberately Disruptive Behavior
Spirited discussion is expected and encouraged, and thread topics
often digress but members who continually disrupt conversations
or start provocative threads with no intention of having an
honest discussion will be considered a nuisance.  Any member
deliberately provoking another member into being disruptive may
have their attempts backfire. Proselytization also falls under
disruptive behavior and will not be tolerated on this forum.

[jerry mcmasters]

I don't read much fiction and he was a literary critic so there are large chunks of the book that I can't make heads or tails of, but you will like the history stuff.  He has a great essay on the importance of John Brown that really changed my way of thinking about him.  After you read it you're like damn, that's so obvious how didn't I think of that?!

Hitchens was the only one of the so-called Four Horsemen whose ideas were fairly original, in my estimation. I'm looking forward to reading this book you've recommended, especially that you mention he addresses fiction as well. I'm not a big fan of fiction either, but I get how some works of fiction can change mindsets and am interested in reading his views on it.

His literary critiques are so pleasing to read, even with me knowing nothing about the author he's critiquing, it almost makes you want to go out and read some works by the author he's talking about.  I say "almost" because I haven't lol, but you get my meaning. 

Daniel Dennet is the least famous of the four, I bought and tried to slog through Darwin's Dangerous Idea but didn't get much out of it.  I don't know what repute (in originality or quality) it is held in among experts.  

Harris is brilliant though it's easy to find detractors from right and left; he's said something at some point to offend everybody on the political spectrum.  The Moral Landscape (though I could be wrong) is original and very thought provoking- non-theistic scientific argument for the existence of moral absolutes.  Agree with him or not, it will leave you thinking.

Regarding Dawkins and originality, I always thought The Selfish Gene introduced original interpretation and way of thinking about evolution rather than some original scientific "discovery" or breakthrough.  He is for certain one of the greatest and most influential  populizers and public teachers of evolution ever.

[Inkubus]

(Much snipped for focus)
He is for certain one of the greatest and most influential  populizers and public teachers of evolution ever.

Finally: We have a little honesty in this abortion of a debate.

[Szuchow]

Daniel Dennet is the least famous of the four, I bought and tried to slog through Darwin's Dangerous Idea but didn't get much out of it.  I don't know what repute (in originality or quality) it is held in among experts.

I found his Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon to be interesting book, one that is easy to recommend. I also enjoyed both Harris and Dawkins books.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Regarding Dawkins and originality, I always thought The Selfish Gene introduced original interpretation and way of thinking about evolution rather than some original scientific "discovery" or breakthrough.  He is for certain one of the greatest and most influential  populizers and public teachers of evolution ever.

Right, I was referring to TGD and his arguments for atheism, not his books regarding science. Selfish Gene was certainly an eye-opener for me. The Blind Watchmaker was an interesting intersection of his scientific writing and his atheist writing.

Hitchens had a wonderful writing style, very artful yet concise and to the point at the same time.

[Mathilda]

Wiki says: "As of 2023, there are an estimated 718 million Christians from all denominations in Africa,[13] up from about 10 million in 1900. [14]" From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Africa

How did this extraordinary demographics change, within living memory, take place so dramatically and drastically in Africa?

On the one hand Christians boast about how many of them there are in the world, as if that means anything, but the implication being that their brand of religion is more likely to be correct or something.

But then when you start to ask them about the bad behaviour or beliefs of other Christians they don't agree with they'll argue that they aren't true Christians.

So there can either be millions of Christians living around the world today or very few depending on what they're trying to argue.

[Minimalist]

It's the No True Christian fallacy run amok.

[pattylt]

@ Patty,

Is this the one you were talking about?

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/156085...J756553N3A

First, the closer scrutiny the Pauline texts receive, the clearer it becomes (and by now it seems mighty clear indeed) that the epistles present us with many of the same challenges the Gospels did. They appear to be filled with the same variety of redactional seams, non-sequiturs, and double-audience rhetorical tricks we find in the Gospels. In short, the historical Jesus problem replicates itself in the case of Paul. The epistles reveal themselves to the discerning reader to have exactly the same sort of limitations as the Gospels do: both are collections of fragments and pericopae contributed and fabricated by authors and communities of very different theological leanings. Both present barriers to the access of the individuals under whose names they appear, not open doors.

Yes, I’m pretty sure it is.  He argues that Paul was Simon Magus and builds a pretty good case for it.  I wasn’t totally convinced but I respect Price’s willingness to “go there”.

[Minimalist]

Xhristards have a great deal of difficulty defining what they even mean by "historical jesus."

"Biblical Jesus" is easy.  That's the miracle working godboy that fundie morons swear was real.

"Mythic Jesus" is even easier.  Jesus is a later invention by believing fools.

But when you get to the Historical Jesus ( HJ ) they are all over the place.  From Revolutionary Zealot troublemaker to some variant of a wise teacher to a failed apocalyptic prophet.

This caused the previously mentioned J D Crossan to comment:

Numerous secular scholars have presented their own versions of the so-called “Historical Jesus” – and most of them are, as biblical scholar J.D. Crossan puts it, “an academic embarrassment”.

Nonetheless, that didn't stop Crossan from giving it a go himself!  Nothing seems to stop these clowns.


As far as Paul goes they think they have it easier.

No matter how outlandish the claims, they think the Paul portrayed in Acts is the real deal.  But the dates for the composition of "Acts" runs from 60-150 and depending on which set of holy blinders they choose to wear anyone can find whatever the fuck they want in it so it is not a very compelling argument.

But Price has the balls to challenge the religitards on their own turf....a process begun by F. C Baur in the 1830's.  So today when the religitards trot out their own No True Scholar (Scotsman) whine that no "real scholars" dispute the existence of jesus and paul they are disregarding facts...which is common among religitards.

[Xavier]

Wiki says: "As of 2023, there are an estimated 718 million Christians from all denominations in Africa,[13] up from about 10 million in 1900. [14]" From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Africa

How did this extraordinary demographics change, within living memory, take place so dramatically and drastically in Africa?

On the one hand Christians boast about how many of them there are in the world, as if that means anything, but the implication being that their brand of religion is more likely to be correct or something.

But then when you start to ask them about the bad behaviour or beliefs of other Christians they don't agree with they'll argue that they aren't true Christians.

So there can either be millions of Christians living around the world today or very few depending on what they're trying to argue

Hi Mathilda. It's not just about there being 2.6 BN Christians in the world compared to 150 MN Atheists (33% to 2%) (800 MN - 10% if Agnostics and the religiously unaffiliated are included). It's more about the pace of the change. Btw, some Atheists too would not consider Agnostics as "True Atheists" while others would, so that issue is there in Atheism as well.

I'm a Catholics, and for Catholics, all those who believe and have been raised in Christian Denominations professing Christ's Divinity/the Trinity as stated in the Nicene Creed are Christians. This is mentioned in Vatican II. All 3 major branches of Christendom, Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox, confess the Trinity. Two groups do not, the JWs and Mormons, but those constitute only a minute percentage of professing Christians, even worldwide, but especially in Africa.

Back to the pace of the change. As other posters noted, Africa's Population in 1900 was around 140 MN. It is 11 times that today at around 1.52 BN. Africa's Christian Population was only 10 MN. Thus, by natural increase alone, one would expect the Christian population today to be a mere 110 MN. Yet, it is 610 MN above that. As far as I'm aware, such an extraordinary demographics change in so short a time has never happened in the history of any Religion anywhere, with the possible exception of how Europe became Christian in the first place, from the 5th century onward. Can anyone cite an example of similar growth in a Religion/Worldview other than Christianity? 

Here, some may mention Islam as a counterexample. Let's take the case of Islam in Africa. There were 35 MN Muslims in Africa in 1900. There are around 427 MN today. Multiplying by 11 gives an expected number of Muslims at 385 MN by natural increase alone. Thus, likely only the other 42 MN, or around 10% of the total Muslims in Africa, are to be accounted as conversions. For Christianity, that percentage by contrast (610/720=) is around 85%. A dramatic difference in the numbers.

Personally, I have no issue with peaceful advocacy for Atheism, Islam, or any other Religion/Worldview. It's when there is violent terrorism instead that there is an issue, as there often is with Islamist insurgents in Africa. Boko Haram itself, a well known terrorist group, was formed partly in response to the growth of Christianity and the Western education it brings with it: "The Boko Haram insurgency began in July 2009,[79][80] when the militant Islamist and jihadist rebel group Boko Haram started an armed rebellion against the government of Nigeria.[54][81] The conflict is taking place within the context of long-standing issues of religious violence between Nigeria's Muslim and Christian communities, and the insurgents' ultimate aim is to establish an Islamic state in the region.[82] Boko Haram's initial uprising failed, and its leader Mohammed Yusuf was killed by the Nigerian government.[83] He began the group in the year 2002, with a view of opposing western education with his followers.[84]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boko_Haram_insurgency

God Bless.

[Dānu]

On the one hand Christians boast about how many of them there are in the world, as if that means anything, but the implication being that their brand of religion is more likely to be correct or something.

But then when you start to ask them about the bad behaviour or beliefs of other Christians they don't agree with they'll argue that they aren't true Christians.

So there can either be millions of Christians living around the world today or very few depending on what they're trying to argue

Hi Mathilda. It's not just about there being 2.6 BN Christians in the world compared to 150 MN Atheists (33% to 2%) (800 MN - 10% if Agnostics and the religiously unaffiliated are included). It's more about the pace of the change. Btw, some Atheists too would not consider Agnostics as "True Atheists" while others would, so that issue is there in Atheism as well.

You don't understand her point about claiming true Christians. You're not very bright, are you?

[jerry mcmasters]

Xhristards have a great deal of difficulty defining what they even mean by "historical jesus."

"Biblical Jesus" is easy.  That's the miracle working godboy that fundie morons swear was real.

"Mythic Jesus" is even easier.  Jesus is a later invention by believing fools.

But when you get to the Historical Jesus ( HJ ) they are all over the place.  From Revolutionary Zealot troublemaker to some variant of a wise teacher to a failed apocalyptic prophet.

This caused the previously mentioned J D Crossan to comment:

Numerous secular scholars have presented their own versions of the so-called “Historical Jesus” – and most of them are, as biblical scholar J.D. Crossan puts it, “an academic embarrassment”.

Nonetheless, that didn't stop Crossan from giving it a go himself!  Nothing seems to stop these clowns.

Follow the money!  Many of these characters have made a good fortune on Jesus histories, people just eat this stuff up whether it's traditional Jesus, mythic Jesus, historic Jesus, whatever.  Crossan himself probably has lost track of what he actually thinks about Jesus.

Keep an eye out for my contribution to the Historical Jesus literature:  "Jesus:  Man, Myth, or OH oh I see a turtle!  Turtle, turtle!"

[Minimalist]

Yes, of course Jerry.  They write these books for a specific subset of believers.  Fundies - who wouldn't understand the big words in the first place - are not interested in anything that impacts the "Holy" vision they have of this horseshit.  So they aren't buying them except maybe a handful who will refute them by quoting from the fucking bible.  Then there are the ethnic xtians who don't really give a shit one way or the other and simply identify as xtians because that's how they were raised.  They are not reading these books.  So they are selling these books to a small minority of heretics who think that there "must" have been a guy named jesus but can't buy the miracle-working stupidity of the fundies.

To a degree I agree with Crossan's observation.  The fact that so many people - alleged scholars, even if they are inherently biased - can look at the same collection of hoary scribblings of primitive assholes and come to such wildly differing conclusions is an embarrassment.  They are raising the art of cherry-picking to new heights.  The fact that Crossan then jumped into the pool with them is a big strike against him.

[pattylt]

Statistically, Christianity spread at the same rate as the LDS church did. Ehrman wrote a book on it. Richard Carrier also discusses the rise and spread and also determines there was nothing miraculous nor special about it. Christian’s concentrated on converting families whether the wife, children or slaves were on board or not.

And quoting the numbers of Catholics, you need to decrease by the amount that don’t attend church regularly or just never bother to tell their parish to remove them. Only about %10 of Catholics do the minimum required weekly attendance to Mass or observe Holy Days of Obligation, etc…. More that 10% of Catholics have likely been diddled by their priests, too. Catholicism is dying the same death as Christianity in general…excluding Africa where superstition still reigns and religion offers a good living.

[Minimalist]

I'm sure the fucking catholicks still have me on the books.  Once the motherfuckers claim you they never give up even though I did officially resign.  I sent a certified letter to the pope telling him to go fuck himself in Latin.  That should have done the trick!

[Dānu]

Here's the level of rational thinking involved in African Christians.



African Pastor Believed Himself To Be A Messenger Of Jesus, Dies While Recreating 'Resurrection' From Grave

[SaxonX]

Guess god wasn't in a generous mood

[jerry mcmasters]

Yes, of course Jerry.  They write these books for a specific subset of believers.  Fundies - who wouldn't understand the big words in the first place - are not interested in anything that impacts the "Holy" vision they have of this horseshit.  So they aren't buying them except maybe a handful who will refute them by quoting from the fucking bible.  Then there are the ethnic xtians who don't really give a shit one way or the other and simply identify as xtians because that's how they were raised.  They are not reading these books.  So they are selling these books to a small minority of heretics who think that there "must" have been a guy named jesus but can't buy the miracle-working stupidity of the fundies.

To a degree I agree with Crossan's observation.  The fact that so many people - alleged scholars, even if they are inherently biased - can look at the same collection of hoary scribblings of primitive assholes and come to such wildly differing conclusions is an embarrassment.  They are raising the art of cherry-picking to new heights.  The fact that Crossan then jumped into the pool with them is a big strike against him.

Another sub-sub-genre of apologetic book hawking is the Court of Law Analogy stuff.  "I was a prosecutor and I sent people to death row on far less evidence than we have for the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ!  Join me for a legal analysis of the case for the literal resurrection:  Jesus On Trial!"  Chapter one, eyewitness testimony! ...and such.

[epronovost]

Another sub-sub-genre of apologetic book hawking is the Court of Law Analogy stuff.  "I was a prosecutor and I sent people to death row on far less evidence than we have for the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ!  Join me for a legal analysis of the case for the literal resurrection:  Jesus On Trial!"  Chapter one, eyewitness testimony! ...and such.

Good observation. Fundamentalist seem to love courts of law analogy stuff. I wonder why this appeal to them so much. Maybe fundies love court/cop shows very much because they tell stories of investigations with clear cut good and bad teams?

[jerry mcmasters]

Another sub-sub-genre of apologetic book hawking is the Court of Law Analogy stuff.  "I was a prosecutor and I sent people to death row on far less evidence than we have for the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ!  Join me for a legal analysis of the case for the literal resurrection:  Jesus On Trial!"  Chapter one, eyewitness testimony! ...and such.

Good observation. Fundamentalist seem to love courts of law analogy stuff. I wonder why this appeal to them so much. Maybe fundies love court/cop shows very much because they tell stories of investigations with clear cut good and bad teams?

Yeah it's taking advantage of inherent trust in authority.  Our court system (it is presumed) is noble and true and dispenses justice with accuracy so if we just apply those same standards to events 2,000 years ago then therein lies Truth!  More people are familiar with cop/detective/crime shows on television than they are with basics of historical method.

[Minimalist]

https://www.innocenceproject.org/wp-cont...port-5.pdf

Eyewitness identification is among the most prevalent and persuasive evidence used in courtrooms. Eyewitness testimony that directly implicates the defendant is compelling evidence in any trial, but it is not error-proof. Jurors may not realize that confident, trustworthy witnesses can be mistaken. A single witness’s identification can be enough to obtain a conviction. Eyewitness identification also plays a key role in shaping investigations. In the immediate aftermath of a crime, an erroneous identification can derail police investigations by putting focus on an innocent person while the actual perpetrator is still on the streets. Once a witness identifies the suspect to police, whether or not that person actually committed the crime, investigators may stop looking for other suspects. 

The Innocence Project identifies the common causes of wrongful convictions across DNA exoneration cases and has found eyewitness misidentification to be the leading cause. Innocence Project research shows: 
• Over 230 people, serving an average of 12 years in prison, have been exonerated through DNA testing in the United States, and 75% of those wrongful convictions (179 individual cases as of this writing) involved eyewitness misidentification.
 • In 38% of the misidentification cases, multiple eyewitnesses misidentified the same innocent person.