I really don't wish to post but i cannot resit to demonstrate that Lulapilgrim manipulate numbers, post wrong info, ignore fact who can hurt her believe/theory...

So, let begin...

According to the 2010 World Almanac, worldwide the Catholic Church's membership increased. 1,146,656,000 

Seem to imply that data are from 2010...

Wrong... 1.146 billion is a 2007 value who was publish in the 2009 version of the Annuario Pontifico ( http://www.americancatholic.org/news/report.aspx?id=759 )...

And 1.166 billion is the 2008 value who was publish in the 2010 version of the Annuario Pontifico... 

Lulapilgrim have choose ignore the real date of the data sample but keep the data of the publication for imply that data was recent and not from a half decade ago...

So now that we have a real time frame, 2007 to 2008, we can really start crusihing the numbers...

19 million new catholic seem a big number... when in fact, it is only a increase of 1.6870% ... yes, i know, in the link that i have posted up, the Vatican say 1.4% but it seem that they cannot calculate :

1146656000 * 1.014 = 1.162.709.184

114665600 * 1.016870 = 1.166.000.008 ... who is the church total of 1.166 billion...

So, this time, it show that church data are not reliable... ofwell the 1.4% growth rate is wrong or the total of catholic in 2008 is not 1.166 billion but 1.162 billion... if the pontifical 1.4% is right, it is not 19 million new catholic but 16 million... well, after all, a possible mistake of 4 million people is nothing...

As for these grow number, you need to remember that population numbers increase too... the world grow rate 2007-2008 was 1.1% ... who mean the the real catholic church grow rate is 0.3% if pontifical number are used or around 0.6% if my mathematical number ( 1.6870% ) is used...

Yes, i know, my number show that the real grow rate is double with my number that with the pontifical one... 0.6% and 0.3% ... well, i will not begin make the number lies for please me... if the catholic population was 114665600 in 2007, 1166 billion in 2008, it mean a increase of 1.6870%... when related to the world growth rate of 1.1%, it give us 0.5870% ...

Point is pontifical numbers don't add to themself... that the real growth rate have a error margin of 100% with pontifical number ( 0.3% and 0.6% )... i don't care that my calculation is beneficial for the catholic growth rate, it show that pontifical administration don't check the number that they publish and that they can make mistake... 

For info, if you take a longer periode, by example 2000-2008, catholic growth rate is 11.54% with a world growth rate of  10.77% ... mean a real growth rate of  0.77% for 8 year, or 0.09625% by year... seem to me that 0.09625% by year is almost nothing... it is around 1 million people, 4 time less that the 4 million people mistake from 2007-2008 from the pontifical number...

So, in the long term, it seem that the grow rate of the catholic people is almost identical to the world population growth rate... if church use 2007-2008 periode, it is simply because it was a good year for them... for people reading these post, be very carefull when you read some statistic... statistic are based on mathematic but they can be manipulated and used to proof everything...

For example, let say that you have a question like "do you believe that God exist?"... that 35% reply "yes", that 30% reply "no", that 25% reply "i don't know", and that 10% don't reply...

- a christian will say ; there is more people who believe in God that people who don't believe, we are the majority

- a atheist will say : only 35% of people believe in God, they are a minority

In both case, Christian and atheist manipulate data, christian ignore the 35% of people who "don't know" or who have not reply... Atheist use them on like if they have reply "no"...

Point, don't believe statistical conclusion with a full set of the data collected... best to have the method used for collect the data and the margin of error calculated...

The new Catholics included 887,145 infant Baptisms, 42,629 adult Baptisms, and 81, 775 receptions of other Christians into full communion with the Church.

For the sake of the argument, let say that i believe your numbers...

887145 infant baptims...

There is the problem... once you are baptized, you are a christian forever... i was baptized when i was a child in a a catholic church... i was baptized as adult in a russian orthodox church when i have marry my russian wife ( it was obligated by the orthodox church for have a traditional marriage in russia )...

So, i am in the catholic statistic and i am in the orthodox statistic...  i am counted two time... if it was about election, it will be called a fraud... the more fun is that i don't believe anymore in these two religions, like i have wrote before, i am agnostic... a guy who will have reply "i don't know" to the statistical example about God existance used in these post...

Point is that the majority of new members are baby who have not choice to be member of the christian... when they will grow up, they will forge their own opinion... some of them will become true christian, some of them will become atheist, some will choice a other religion, some will become agnostic, some...

These "1.166 billion of christian" from 2008 is a false info... the real info is 1.166 billion people who are baptized... the guy who was baptized as baby, but who at 25 yo choice to embrace a Islamic religion will continue to be count as a christian...

A lot of people baptize their baby by tradition, like a lot of non believer marry in church, like a lot of people feast Christmas without believing in God or Jesus... 

The 42629 adult Baptisms are the real believer, people who have make the choice for themself... but the 887145 infant have not make the choice, somebody else have make it because their own belief, because of tradition, because of societal influence, etc.... with time, a portion of these 887145 infant will drop out of christianity... but church will continue to count them as their...

 

And the necrophilia award goes to *drums*

 

 

lulapilgrim!!!

Hide your children!!!!!!!!!

I mean little boys..........

You do not understand what an atheist is because you insist on using religious terminology to describe us ... all of us ... under some kind of group mentality license you suspiciously equate with religious like zeal. What other possible options do we have to rely upon to defend our beliefs … than the science we use to define everything else in our lives??? Are we supposed to make some kind of exception whenever someone wants to bring magic into the equation? Can you be realistic for the moment at least? If you guys actually disbelieve the sciences, all of them (???), then just say so and present your evidence to the contrary. Most of the above comments imply a willingness to argue but not a willingness to be fair or even considerate of the reality we all actually do understand, some more than others I expect. A two thousand year old Bronze Age mindset vs. the scientific discoveries of the last hundred and fifty years … just seems like a no-brainer to me is all??? We are all in fact atheists in regards to everyone else’s religious foundation??? Atheists, the ones usually referenced, just believe in one less god than most. Christians have no problem being atheistic in regards to Islam … and vice versa. I am sure most religions have their own epiphany to contend with and disregard most others offhandedly … atheistically to be sure. It is only when looking internally that they all rely on mysticism to explain everything to themselves (???), go figure … blast the rest of humanity??? I think the sole remaining purpose of religion today (pick your flavor) is to test our powers of credulity. Can you believe in this god on bad evidence which is to say on faith alone? And if you can, you will then somehow win an eternity of happiness, ‘Living the life of Riley’ in the hereafter, just because of that unrealistic belief? You must then believe that the natural laws we are encumbered with are interruptible and changeable at the whim of some godly entity … all things being under his complete control. You might want to think about the last part, and then reflect some on world events. All the sciences to date agree independently and in concurrence with all interconnecting fields of study. Be it the universe, the galaxy, the system or the planet … we know the reality of life on earth … and beyond! Are you really concerned with the word ‘god’ as used in our society … because it bothers me not … just as long as it spends and posts anyway?

Hi ithuta--if you lure me back onto this thread I'll have to kill you--but I appreciated your open mindedness and I am a sucker for these threads--even when slightly dated.

If you've ever read the book Flatlander (you can get at Project Gutenberg for free) it spins a tale revolving in part around how a two dimensional character would respond upon meeting a three dimensional one.

There is an exchange of concepts and both sides come away with appreciations but the reality of true 3D life can never be fully conceived of and understood in the 2D world--only be related to.

If a being like "God" exists (and I have my own personal reasons for thinking it does), then it occupies a similar "high ground"--much like the 3D character in Flatlander did in the 2D world.

The core of all spiritual belief hinges on the idea that there are degrees of reality beyond what we normally experience "here" and that glimpses and hints of those realities can be found--at least in part.  The devil, however, is in the details.

To reach the 3D world as a 2D being most likely requires the assistance of a 3D being--otherwise it is probably near, or even actually,  impossible.

In the same way, however many higher "dimensions" to God there are to reach the--one in which a God resides would require the action of it's occupant for us to have any experience or understanding of it.  We also would be completely unqualified to judge or imagine a being from such a realm because we couldn't begin to understand what its reality is.

The biblical God is described in Bronze and Iron Age terms using metaphorical language and examples on many occasions to describe something that would normally be "beyond description".  Reading it as a literal science book or dictionary will have some serious problems as regards getting understanding beyond it unless there is some message within it designed to reach us "flatlanders" in a way we can receive.

Steven Hawking is quite against signaling to the universe, "We are here!" because he thinks it may be very probable that we could not survive a competitive encounter with an advanced species and  one of his peers is quite vehement that we may encounter beings that experience reality on levels we literally are incapable of perceiving or imagining and would have no more substance or interest for them than a harmless germ does for us.

Those ideas are straight from science.

So the dialogue between people of spiritual experience and people of science should be properly divided.  Discussions of what science can see as probable shouldn't dismiss everything else as "impossible". Firsthand, personal experiences and testimonies should be examined on a single level and looked at in detail--rather than discarded out of hand. Religion and the doctrines of adherents should quit being used as a straw man rebuttal to everything spiritual.  Even a broken analogue clock has the right time twice a day.

Not believing in an afterlife or deity does not automatically equate to, "there can not be one".