*************
M*W: We all know that www.adherents.com states that 33% of the world's population is Christian. I would like to know, from this percentage, how many of these people "claim" to be "Christian" but do so only as habit and never attend church, read the bible, or pray.

Statistically speaking, how many alleged "Christians" use it as a catchall? Can Agnostics still be considered "Christian?"

Out of all the Christians in the world (33%), how many of those are babies and children who they themselves have not chosen "Christianity" as their religion?

I think the numbers are skewed and there are fewer "Christians" in the world than the statistics indicate.

There are still a hell of a lot of them. I'd still bet it's the largest religion.

good question MW,

I often hear people talking about how christianity is getting stronger in the US, but I think that is BS. most people who would check the Christian box on a survey are not really very religious, but they grew up as Christians so check it as default. moreover, many agnostics don't know what agnosticism is, so would probably just check Christian if their parents were, even though they are really agnostic.

a good project for some student would be to have two surveys, one that just asks for religion, and another that asks the same people (after they pick a religion) if they thought that it was possible to know god, or to know which religion is actually correct. I would bet a good deal of people who checked [Christian] would a say that it is not possible to truly know which god was correct, thus putting them in the agnostic category.

There are still a hell of a lot of them. I'd still bet it's the largest religion.

*************
M*W: Yes, that's what Christians would say. Even when presented the religious pie chart, they vehemently deny it.

Fact is, 2/3 of the world's population are Christian.... NOT!!!

It depends on the survey...

Before 2003 I would have ignored the 'atheist' box and probably ticked the 'catholic' box in a survey asking me my religion even though I was a passive non-believer.

Although if asked the simple question 'do you believe in god?' I would have ticked 'no' beyond 11 years of age.

People who are passive towards religion wether they be believers or non-believers, will both probably identify themselves with the religion they have had forced on them. But of course it might not take much persuading for them to tick the 'atheist' box if they can get over the stigma of such a name.

good question MW,

I often hear people talking about how christianity is getting stronger in the US, but I think that is BS. most people who would check the Christian box on a survey are not really very religious, but they grew up as Christians so check it as default. moreover, many agnostics don't know what agnosticism is, so would probably just check Christian if their parents were, even though they are really agnostic.

a good project for some student would be to have two surveys, one that just asks for religion, and another that asks the same people (after they pick a religion) if they thought that it was possible to know god, or to know which religion is actually correct. I would bet a good deal of people who checked [Christian] would a say that it is not possible to truly know which god was correct, thus putting them in the agnostic category.

*************
M*W: The buzz word here is "default." I totally agree with the rest of your statement. Exactly what is the percentage of "default Christian statistics?" Even the Christian-right admit they are massively losing their sheeple. Still, the sheeple claim they are scorching the Earth far beyond the statistical 33%! The lies, the lies!

Christianity is dying. They cannot deny that! Was it their antiquated philosophy? Was it their passe mystical beliefs? Was it the canibalistic tendencies of the sacrament? Was it having absolutely no proven dying demigod savior? Who knows? Christianity is a farce that offers nothing but a glimpse of retribution from one's Earthly existence. No heaven. No hell. No limbo. No creator god. Man created the idea. He created the symbol. He created the cosmology. There is nothing holy, nothing sacred, nothing blessed. Mankind is the image of god. Mankind is god. Mankind is creator of the universe. The universe is dying (i.e. the melting ice caps). Mankind sucks. The only reality is there is no god.

*************
M*W: Yes, that's what Christians would say. Even when presented the religious pie chart, they vehemently deny it.

Fact is, 2/3 of the world's population are Christian.... NOT!!!
Um, I'm not a Christian and I am still saying that it's probably the largest religion. Maybe, just maybe Islam beats it if you factor in how devout practitioners are. Of course, I'd like someone to post up some (reputable) statistics on the subject, like perhaps census data from around the world if possible. I wonder if the U.N. keeps these kinds of statistics?

*************
M*W: The buzz word here is "default." I totally agree with the rest of your statement. Exactly what is the percentage of "default Christian statistics?" Even the Christian-right admit they are massively losing their sheeple. Still, the sheeple claim they are scorching the Earth far beyond the statistical 33%! The lies, the lies!

Christianity is dying. They cannot deny that! Was it their antiquated philosophy? Was it their passe mystical beliefs? Was it the canibalistic tendencies of the sacrament? Was it having absolutely no proven dying demigod savior? Who knows? Christianity is a farce that offers nothing but a glimpse of retribution from one's Earthly existence. No heaven. No hell. No limbo. No creator god. Man created the idea. He created the symbol. He created the cosmology. There is nothing holy, nothing sacred, nothing blessed. Mankind is the image of god. Mankind is god. Mankind is creator of the universe. The universe is dying (i.e. the melting ice caps). Mankind sucks. The only reality is there is no god.
Oh, I'm sorry. I was under the impression that this was actually a thread meant to determine the real prevalence of Christianity amongst the world's populace, instead of another one of your "Let's bash Christianity" threads. Forgive my false impression of your motives... I shouldn't have expected so much.

I'd still like someone to find some reliable statistics on it, though. I'm just too lazy to find any good ones myself.

Um, I'm not a Christian and I am still saying that it's probably the largest religion. Maybe, just maybe Islam beats it if you factor in how devout practitioners are. Of course, I'd like someone to post up some (reputable) statistics on the subject, like perhaps census data from around the world if possible. I wonder if the U.N. keeps these kinds of statistics?

Oh, I'm sorry. I was under the impression that this was actually a thread meant to determine the real prevalence of Christianity amongst the world's populace, instead of another one of your "Let's bash Christianity" threads. Forgive my false impression of your motives... I shouldn't have expected so much.

I'd still like someone to find some reliable statistics on it, though. I'm just too lazy to find any good ones myself.

*************
M*W: What a phony ass you are! Statistics cannot be be denied. You're the lazy one. You're so lazy that you believe whatever it is you've been spoon fed. Why don't you do some research? Maybe you'd find out the truth. You're an uneducated baffoon.

*************
M*W: What a phony ass you are! Statistics cannot be be denied. You're the lazy one. You're so lazy that you believe whatever it is you've been spoon fed. Why don't you do some research? Maybe you'd find out the truth. You're an uneducated baffoon.
The above, in actuality, makes no sense at all. In fact I'm thinking you didn't read the post. Maybe you got past the first couple lines, and then your indignant rage compelled you to barf out this gem all over your keyboard.

However, why don't you help us "baffoons" out by providing us with some links to start our research? Where are these undeniable statistics that you haven't even quoted?

A good litmus test for Christianity is whether people believe in hell. It's easy to believe in heaven, or at least to say you do. It's not so easy to believe in hell without it having a major impact on your life.

The last survey I saw said that something like 85% of Americans believe in heaven but only about 20% believe in hell.

Um, I'm not a Christian and I am still saying that it's probably the largest religion. Maybe, just maybe Islam beats it if you factor in how devout practitioners are. Of course, I'd like someone to post up some (reputable) statistics on the subject, like perhaps census data from around the world if possible. I wonder if the U.N. keeps these kinds of statistics?

That's probably not fair though, you are comparing modern societies who have had to deal with centuries of increasing secularism to much of todays Islamic world which is on a par with Christianity in medieval times. If that comparison is more or less accurate, then I think Islam is behaving alright.

Interesting though, that the one place I can think of that Christians still have power (the US), their morals are distorted back in time. Forgiveness, love, peace and good will being boasted as the main points of Christianity certainly isn't shown by fundamentalist Christians...

The above, in actuality, makes no sense at all. In fact I'm thinking you didn't read the post. Maybe you got past the first couple lines, and then your indignant rage compelled you to barf out this gem all over your keyboard.

However, why don't you help us "baffoons" out by providing us with some links to start our research? Where are these undeniable statistics that you haven't even quoted?

*************
M*W: www.adherents.com The statistics I care about are the non-enumerated ones: babies and children who cannot speak for themselves; those who are in prison are issued bibles and are statistically significant for elevating the numbers in Christianity. Phony christians, those who default to Christianity for lack of option of other religion or non-religion; how many "so-called" Christians out there who never go to church, don't own any bible, never pray, but enjoy their vices, and flat don't believe in any god. What about these statistics? Are they included in the 33% of the world's population? I doubt it. Let's come clean, people. You know it, and I know it. Christianity scrapes the bucket at far less than 33%.

A good litmus test for Christianity is whether people believe in hell. It's easy to believe in heaven, or at least to say you do. It's not so easy to believe in hell without it having a major impact on your life.

The last survey I saw said that something like 85% of Americans believe in heaven but only about 20% believe in hell.

*************
M*W: They talk about hell by far more than they talk about heaven. That's fucked-up, don't you think? But they worry about blaspheming the holy spirit (whom, by the way, doesn't exist!). Then who are they blaspheming?

Modern prophets dispell the holy spirit, the trinity, and the virgin birth. What's love got to do, got to do with it? What's love, but a second-hand emotion? All praise Tina Turner!

I often hear people talking about how christianity is getting stronger in the US, but I think that is BS. most people who would check the Christian box on a survey are not really very religious, but they grew up as Christians so check it as default.
What type of christian would you prefer to have a profusion of - a Pat Robertson, or someone who just believes in God, prays, and tries to live their life without hurting people?
I like christian 2.0 better as a population, if the first version is the fanatical hypocrites.

*************
M*W: www.adherents.com The statistics I care about are the non-enumerated ones: babies and children who cannot speak for themselves; those who are in prison are issued bibles and are statistically significant for elevating the numbers in Christianity. Phony christians, those who default to Christianity for lack of option of other religion or non-religion; how many "so-called" Christians out there who never go to church, don't own any bible, never pray, but enjoy their vices, and flat don't believe in any god. What about these statistics? Are they included in the 33% of the world's population? I doubt it. Let's come clean, people. You know it, and I know it. Christianity scrapes the bucket at far less than 33%.
Can you provide some statistical evidence that these "secular Christians" are a predominant demographic?

http://www.adherents.com/images/rel_pie.gif

Note that half of the "Nonreligious" group is theistic. Seems to me that most secular Christians would fall under this category, then.

*************
M*W: What a phony ass you are! Statistics cannot be be denied. You're the lazy one. You're so lazy that you believe whatever it is you've been spoon fed. Why don't you do some research? Maybe you'd find out the truth. You're an uneducated baffoon.
Phony? Um... you didn't read my post at all. I'm not denying any statistics, I'm asking you to provide some that aren't so skewed by your obvious, completely irrational hatred of Christianity. I'm perfectly willing to accept statistics that support your assertion that Christianity is dwindling, in fact I agree that it is. I just want you to send me some from some credible sources, because I believe they are out there.

As to the rest, I'm going to ignore the ad-hominem about me being an uneducated baffoon. I'm not even going to try to dispute your claim. Yes. I'm uneducated, and I'm a baffoon. Ok. There. I've admitted it. You're right. Asking you a question that you find inconvenient clearly makes me into an ass. You're so right. Teach me, O' glorious leader. Show me the undeniable truth of your beliefs.

Note that half of the "Nonreligious" group is theistic. Seems to me that most secular Christians would fall under this category, then.

How does someone who calls themselves a theists but having no particular religion still be a Christian?

Phony? Um... you didn't read my post at all. I'm not denying any statistics, I'm asking you to provide some that aren't so skewed by your obvious, completely irrational hatred of Christianity. I'm perfectly willing to accept statistics that support your assertion that Christianity is dwindling, in fact I agree that it is. I just want you to send me some from some credible sources, because I believe they are out there.

As to the rest, I'm going to ignore the ad-hominem about me being an uneducated baffoon. I'm not even going to try to dispute your claim. Yes. I'm uneducated, and I'm a baffoon. Ok. There. I've admitted it. You're right. Asking you a question that you find inconvenient clearly makes me into an ass. You're so right. Teach me, O' glorious leader. Show me the undeniable truth of your beliefs.

*************
M*W: I wasn't specifically calling you a "buffoon." That term is saved for idiots like Woody and Adstar, so don't automatically assume I mean you are in their ranks.

What I want to know is the "accurate" statistics about Christians. What part of the 33% of worldwide population are truly Christian? I give it at least a 25% rating. Give or take, babies, infants, toddlers, pre-teens, teens, young adults, adults and seniors, who by this time, should be able to enumerate their religious beliefs.

All I'm saying is that 33% is a high estimation for Christians existing in the universe. I think it's more like 25% give-or-take 8% for the douche bags. I am implying that 33% is an inaccurate figure. If we look at that "33%," we can see that it doesn't encompass the phonies, the lying and the defaulted Christians. It doesn't leave the statistics to warrant significantly different values.

*************
M*W: I wasn't specifically calling you a "buffoon." That term is saved for idiots like Woody and Adstar, so don't automatically assume I mean you are in their ranks.
Well, you quoted me before writing it, so it's natural for me to assume that you meant me when you said it.

What I want to know is the "accurate" statistics about Christians. What part of the 33% of worldwide population are truly Christian? I give it at least a 25% rating. Give or take, babies, infants, toddlers, pre-teens, teens, young adults, adults and seniors, who by this time, should be able to enumerate their religious beliefs.

All I'm saying is that 33% is a high estimation for Christians existing in the universe. I think it's more like 25% give-or-take 8% for the douche bags. I am implying that 33% is an inaccurate figure. If we look at that "33%," we can see that it doesn't encompass the phonies, the lying and the defaulted Christians. It doesn't leave the statistics to warrant significantly different values.
I would agree with you, actually. I just wanted to know if there were any well established organizations that had more accurate figures than the ones that you present, as a matter of reference.

I have a real litmus test to see who believes in the Christian god, and who just believe that they should believe in the Christian god.

make a survey and ask them if this should be practiced in modern society:

------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy I - 2:11 (the new international version-bible)

A woman should learn in quietness and full
submission. I do not permit a woman to teach
or to assume authority over a man; she must be
quiet.
------------------------------------------------------------

if they really believe that the Christian god is real, then they should uphold this passage, as it is the word of god.

that should be the true gage of the strength of christianity.

also, MW, are you familiar with the work of Daniel C Dennett? I think you would find his work interesting.
http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/~ddennett.htm

here is a short synopsis of Dennett. sort of Dennett in a nutshell.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=La0sF1Y3AI4

I have a real litmus test to see who believes in the Christian god, and who just believe that they should believe in the Christian god.

make a survey and ask them if this should be practiced in modern society:

------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy I - 2:11 (the new international version-bible)

A woman should learn in quietness and full
submission. I do not permit a woman to teach
or to assume authority over a man; she must be
quiet.
------------------------------------------------------------

if they really believe that the Christian god is real, then they should uphold this passage, as it is the word of god.

that should be the true gage of the strength of christianity.

also, MW, are you familiar with the work of Daniel C Dennett? I think you would find his work interesting.
http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/~ddennett.htm

More off-topic Christian bashing. Can we please stay on the subject at hand?

what? I thought the topic was how the polls say that 33% of the world is Christian, and that the number is probably much lower, dispute the perception of many Christians. is that not the topic?

moreover, how is that Christian bashing? I just suggested a method for measuring the zeal of Christians.

what? I thought the topic was how the polls say that 33% of the world is Christian, and that the number is probably much lower, dispute the perception of many Christians. is that not the topic?

moreover, how is that Christian bashing? I just suggested a method for measuring the zeal of Christians.
It's Christian bashing because it was designed to invoke moral revulsion in people who call themselves Christians, in an attempt to create some nifty cognitive dissonance. We're not talking about whether or not Christians understand their own religion, or whether the passages in their holy text are morally reprehensible. We're talking about statistics. The statistical prevalence of people who assign unto themselves the label "Christian". I'd say it's less about what people who call themselves "Christian" think, and more about what they do. Less about belief, and more about practice.

how do you measure religious practice? it would be very hard. however, you can measure zeal using my above example. perhaps make a list of gradually less offensive passages, and see where the people fall. then you could track the zeal of the population, and compare that to the statistics of who says they are Christian.

my point is: if you can't trust the statistics you have, maybe you need to measure something else.

how do you measure religious practice? it would be very hard. however, you can measure zeal using my above example. perhaps make a list of gradually less offensive passages, and see where the people fall. then you could track the zeal of the population, and compare that to the statistics of who says they are Christian.

my point is: if you can't trust the statistics you have, maybe you need to measure something else.
The Pope wouldn't agree with the passage you quoted, though. Probably only a fundamentalist would, and that's because fundamentalists not only take holy scripture literally, they give it unquestioned authority.

By that litmus test, only a very small part of that 33% would qualify, even though at least 99% of Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, and almost any other Christian denomination, including the clergy themselves, would be excluded. So it is also important to correctly identify what you are testing for.

you are right. thats why I think test should have many passages of varying offensiveness, so we can see where people fall. so that people who check the Christian box can be tested for zeal, then you data will tell you a lot more. that one I quoted is the most extreme case I know of, thats why I posed it.

also, I really don't like christens very much, so sometimes bashing comes through when I was not even thinking about it. =]

I think the only 'christians' you would have to extract from that 33% would be the ones who say they are christian simply because they were born into it. A person is only a christian if they actually believe in some/all of the BS that goes along with it. Many people will be in that 33% because they don't care about religion and have no opinion on it either way, so they tick the box they were born under. And so we don't have an accurate picture.

The way a survey could be more accurate is first asking them in they believe in a certain number of theistic principles such as... God, heaven, hell, the bible/koran etc, then at the end of it asking their religion.

that one I quoted is the most extreme case I know of

Don't forget Deut 10, (about stoning naughty children to death).

Personally I agree with you Cato and can't see why some others have got all defensive over it.

The current discussion is that 33% are christian, (or not as the case may be). The point is what exactly qualifies as a "christian"? If we look at dictionary.com we come up with:

"a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ"

Which would pretty much mean there's no such thing as a christian. Or perhaps:

"exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ"

Which would result in the same thing.

Time and time again on this forum we see one christian tell another christian that he's not a real christian. Adstar does it all the time. It's quite clear that even the supposed christians can't figure out what a christian is or is not and so Cato's test must surely have some merit?

Christian is just a word. I hate labels. You run into these kinds of problems with every label.

That's just a fact of being human. We have brains that function in abstract terms, labeling and categorizing is how humans think. Moreover, if we can find labels to attach to observations about the world around us, how would we ever begin to discuss and describe? I suggest that those who are most vocal against labels are so because of their fear or reluctance to find truth, though I wouldn't suggest that this applies to you in this instance.

With regard to the topic, the problem, as I see it, is one of methodology. How to you observe membership in a given religion to begin with? What defines sincerity in being a member of a given religion? Can one simply agree to be a member and be counted or does one have to arrive at a given standard for that religion?

If there is a standard to be met, what is it? Should it be set by those within the religion or without? Either way, there's a bias involved and the trick will be determining which is more objective: an emic perspective or an ettic one. And, once you find the standard by which to measure true membership to a religion, can this standard be applied equally to other religions? Probably not, since religions vary, some greatly. Using frequency of church attendance wouldn't work with all religions since some cults don't require attendance at all while others require it regularly and often.

In the end, I'm afraid we'd back to self-reporting as the most reliable measure. An emic perspective from the individual. Whatever cult or philosophy that has the most influence on the individual; the one they're most likely to be afraid to deviate from or violate rules of; the one they're most likely to feel pressured to adhere to the doctrines of. That would be the religion that they should be assigned membership to.

If that's the case, then the 33% figure that *MW* cited from adherents.com is probably as accurate as it gets. If you cite church attendance figures (for xians), using a standard of frequency (at least X number of days/year), then the percentages drop considerably.

I've seen christian apologetics and secular critics alike use both figures for varied agenda. Some like the latter method since relatively few christians actually attend church with weekly regularity. Apologetics use this to motivate the attending flock to "witness" others, drive up membership, and encourage backsliders to attend more regularly. Critics of secularism use the same data to bitch about how the devil is taking over the United States and atheists/humanists are oppressing christians. Secular critics of religion use the same data to demonstrate the failure of superstition and religions as cults that can dominate society. And so on.

There is something to what Cato added, even though Jaster Mereel (who still claims he's not a christian? :cool: ) disagrees with it. This is probably best discussed by Sam Harris in The End of Faith, where he discusses how moderates enable fundamentalists by not taking a stand on their religious doctrines. If the bible, for instance (the thread *is* about christianity) is truly inerrant, then there is much that is simply ignored and overlooked by moderates. Truly, every christian should be burning sacrifices and stoning adultresses. These practices and many others are rejected because they go against common sense developed and maintained by a modern (read non-Bronze Age) society. Fundamentalists, a very small sub-percentage of that 33%, find their most vocal rhetoric in many of the very passages that moderates ignore. But the intellectually dishonest moderates try to have their cake (modernity) and eat it too (antiquated ideas).

Cato was pointing out the very intellectually dishonest position that most christians take. Do we count them as truly christian, since they don't actually believe fully in their doctrines? Personally, I think so.

well said skinny.

p.s. when did you change your avatar? I didn't notice.

While I agree with a lot of what SW said, I must say that when it comes to a religion without centralization (The way Christianity is now, since before there was only the Church) you really have to use the standards of the practictioners to define who is and isn't among them.

Of course, this leads to problems since many of the various groups within Christianity claim that other groups aren't "true" Christians, so we're going to have to settle on self-identification as the standard, because if you choose one group and say that they are the true Christians, then you inevitably end up excluding a very large number of people who identify themselves as Christians. What are we to do? Say to those people "No, we've established this arbitrary standard for determining who is Christian, and you don't fall under that category. You might as well stop calling yourself a Christian, then. We obviously know more about your religion than you do." That's seems like sloppy statistics. And lazy, too.

This is the major problem with categorizing religious groups the way many people want, because so many of these groups read the same book and develop different ideas based on it. You can't honestly say that one must contend that 100% of the Bible, as well as the narrow interpretation of it held by fundamentalist Christians is the defining Christian position, since throughout most of Christian history the Bible has not been interpreted in a 100% literal fashion. That's how the Catholic Church ran the religion, and it's still how they go about it today. Fundamentalist, literal readings of the Bible are a relatively new phenomenon, so it's very easy to pick out a passage that is unseemly to most people (and also has no bearing on religious ideas, but cultural observations of the time in which the book was written), and thus conclude that the majority of people who call themselves Christians are not, in fact, what they say they are. In other words, who gets to decide what beliefs make a person a Christian or not? A Secular Humanist who has a settled antipathy to Christianity in the first place? That's like relying on car manufacturers to accurately record instances of automobile accidents caused by faulty design. It's just a poor way to perform statistical analysis.

And yes, Skinwalker, I still "claim" I am not a Christian, because I am not. Just because I disagree with your view of religion, it does not mean that I am a religious practitioner. The arrogance you have to assume that I am religious, merely because I disagree with you is absolutely astounding. Labels are self-assigning, so quit saying I'm a theist when I keep maintaining that I'm not.