is Religious Belief in Decline?

this is a repeat of an article I wrote a few years ago in answer to the same question: is increase in "no reloigous affiliation" a sign religion is in decline? It is true the figures in this essay were from five years ago. But atheists have been doing this same trick sine 1998 when I got into apologetics on the net. Every few years they dust off these numbers and try to make a big thing of a 3% decline.

Atheism is not increasing as of Nov 2015
By Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) - November 29, 2015


The atheists propaganda machine is at it again. Another spate of articles based loosely upon a Pew study talking about Christianity is in decline. As I write it is Nov. 3,2015. They are still failing to distinguish between affiliation and belief in God. The Pew Study says belief in God is holding steady what is declining is affiliation with organized religion. The amalgamation none as "none" (as in religious affiliation: none) is what is growing and while those do include atheists they are not the majority in the category. First let's look at the propaganda. Friendly Atheist Blog says "the momentum is with us." He's talking about the results of a Pew study that follows up the 2014 follow up to the 2009 follow up to the 2007 study. The comment section is hilarious:

Aloha:
"People who believe in God have decreased among the unaffiliated. (Top chart - right side
As usual,"

Rastaman 462 says "the momentum is on our side. When it comes to belief in God, it’s getting smaller with each generation."[It's within the margin of error]

The wretched:
Atheist reasoning. I told them about the margin of error. "You haven't show you can read survey results, why would we believe you when you are telling us what we think? [wrongly I might add, I quoted the study directly; If I haven't proven I understand the results then they have proven to me they can't count. 3%is obvious.]

Astreja
"Kind of hard to bail when you're already at the bottom of the lake." [I'm at the bottom when it's 3% atheist vs 89% Christians?]


The figures they rave about say that belief in God declined from 92% to 89%, That's 3% which is in the margin of error. In an election they would call it a dead heat. But "religion hasn't changed" is not comforting to atheists. My thesis is that there is a real problem and Christians should not feel complacent. Yet belief in God is not declining.

Let's look at some of the articles fueling this orgiastic triumphalism

Tobin Grant, Religion News Service
the great deline
http://tobingrant.religionnews.com/2014/01/27/great-decline-religion-united-states-one-graph/ They explain the gradual decline they chart over five decades but they never explain what they chart or what they take as "average." With no analysis of the context for establishing the "average" the whole thing is meaningless.

The graph of this index tells the story of the rise and fall of religious activity. During the post-war, baby-booming 1950s, there was a revival of religion. Indeed, some at the time considered it a third great awakening. Then came the societal changes of the 1960s, which included a questioning of religious institutions. The resulting decline in religion stopped by the end of the 1970s, when religiosity remained steady. Over the past fifteen years, however, religion has once again declined. But this decline is much sharper than the decline of 1960s and 1970s. Church attendance and prayer is less frequent. The number of people with no religion is growing. Fewer people say that religion is an important part of their lives. All measures point to the same drop in religion: If the 1950s were another Great Awakening, this is the Great Decline. RNS is a non-profit, limited liability corporation owned by the Religion Newswriters Foundation and based at the National Press Building in Washington, D.C., with a business office at the University of Missouri School of Journalism in Columbia, Mo. RNS’s mission is to provide in-depth, non-sectarian coverage of religion, spirituality and ideas.

Apparently they also deal in yellow journliam.

What does the Pew study really say?

Pew Research Center: US public becomes less religious. Nov 3, 215 http://www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/u-s-public-becoming-less-religious

"The share of U.S. adults who say they believe in God, while still remarkably high by comparison with other advanced industrial countries, has declined modestly, from approximately 92% to 89%, since Pew Research Center conducted its first Landscape Study in 2007.1"

As I said before this is in the margin of error. They always assume any survey could be off by 3% so they call it a dead heat in an election. What is really funny is that they will answer my book by saying M scale is a survey so it's not scientific, when it's a survey that suggests a loss in God belief atheists are all to happy to accept the validity of surveys. But atheism is not increasing in fact it could be an increase in belief since it's in the margin of error.

But the Pew Research Center study also finds a great deal of stability in the U.S. religious landscape. The recent decrease in religious beliefs and behaviors is largely attributable to the “nones” – the growing minority of Americans, particularly in the Millennial generation, who say they do not belong to any organized faith. Among the roughly three-quarters of U.S. adults who do claim a religion, there has been no discernible drop in most measures of religious commitment. Indeed, by some conventional measures, religiously affiliated Americans are, on average, even more devout than they were a few years ago. Belief in God is down among the nones. It's down from 71% to 61% but that's 61% of 10% of the country so it's in the 3% over all. Nones up from 16-23% That is not a loss in belief in God it's a loss in Christianity or maybe not even that but in organized church goers. Over all 77% still identify with a faith. Pew Research Center surveys consistently show that not all religious “nones” are nonbelievers. In fact, the majority of Americans without a religious affiliation say they believe in God. As a group, however, the “nones” are far less religiously observant than Americans who identify with a specific faith. And, as the “nones” have grown in size, they also have become even less observant than they were when the original Religious Landscape Study was conducted in 2007. The growth of the “nones” as a share of the population, coupled with their declining levels of religious observance, is tugging down the nation’s overall rates of religious belief and practice.

Gallop offers figures from a a 75 year period given that long view we can see a real change in the level of non affiliated in the last 20 years but while that is undeniable there have been ups and downs before.

Galllop Religion

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1690/Religion.aspx It's only been within the last 20 years that none and non-denominational grew enough to report. While none has increased a from 2% to 16% (1948-2015) so has non-denominational grew proportionately. The loss in protestants could be taken up in growth for non-denom and none.Between 1948 and 2015 Protestant declined from 69 to 37%. Call it 40%. That 20% could be the 10% rise in nonn-denominaltioql and 10% none that would fit with the stats. The majority of nones still believe in God. That would only be a 5% decrease in Christianity. That means there could be no increase in atheism. Most of that fits with the charismatic movement that spawned ecumenical feelings. We see from the graphic at the top that religiosity has held stable much more so than the religious news article would have us believe. 1948 prots 69% Non dom na Catholic 22% None 2%
1958 Prots 69 Non dom na Cathyolic 23 none 2
68
1968 prots 67 non denom n Catholic 25 nonje = 3
1998 prots 58 non denom na Cathoics 27 non 6
2008 prots 47 nondenom 8 Catholic 22 none 12
2014 prots 37 nondenom 10 catholics 23 none 16


While America slips in Christian id China gains.

Realistically we should assume there's been more loss in Christian belief, maybe 20%. That is a problem Christians should be concerned. At the same time there is an increase in Christians in places like China.

US News and world Report: God isn't losing Ground http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/faith-

At the same time, according to "A Star in the East: The Rise of Christianity in China," Christianity is surging in China. The authors of the new book – Rodney Stark, co-director of Baylor University's Institute for Studies of Religion, and sociologist Xiuhua Wang – explained that in 2007 there were about 60 million Christians in Communist China. Now, they noted, more than 40 new Christian churches (not including underground churches) are starting up every week. "If this trend were to hold for even another decade," they wrote, "there would be more Christians in China than any other nation in the world."


Comments

Anonymous said…
The US is still very much a Christian country, but the decline is a good sign.

Personally, I think it can only go down, as the primary reason for believing in Christianity is that you were raised in a Christian culture. As the culture becomes less Christian, less Christians will be raised.

The evidence for this is very clear; Hindus come from Hindu families, Muslims come from Muslim families, Christians come from Christian families. People do not follow a religion because of the evidence, they follow it because they were told it was true from an early age.

Sure, there are other factors. Clearly Christianity got started somehow, but it was in a very different world. Cultures adopted Christianity when the alternatives were local superstitions and paganism. Now Christianity is competing with science in a world where information is freely available; what does it have to offer?

Although atheism is the state religion of China, the reality is that nearly all the people religious, with most practicing some kind of Chinese folk religion. It is possible the rise of Christianity there is similar to the rise of Christianity in Europe long ago; it is seen as a better choice compared to the local superstitions.

Pix
Sure, there are other factors. Clearly Christianity got started somehow, but it was in a very different world. Cultures adopted Christianity when the alternatives were local superstitions and paganism. Now Christianity is competing with science in a world where information is freely available; what does it have to offer?

Christianity is competing with science? Funny I didn't know science promised to save our souls or that Christianity explains physics. I always thought we could believe both, I think that ignoramus Isaac Newton made the same mistake.



Although atheism is the state religion of China, the reality is that nearly all the people religious, with most practicing some kind of Chinese folk religion. It is possible the rise of Christianity there is similar to the rise of Christianity in Europe long ago; it is seen as a better choice compared to the local superstitions.

Yes us American Christians are also very primitive. we worship the ancient superstition known as "logic." In that ancient lore you committed the sin of guilt by association. Just because Chinese peasants are religious doesn't mean modern highly educated Western thinkers are religious for the same reasons as the Chinese peasants. When we make mistakes we make modern scientific mistakes like you do.
I was an atheist. I became a Christian and converted from atheism.
Anonymous said…
Joe: Christianity is competing with science? Funny I didn't know science promised to save our souls or that Christianity explains physics. I always thought we could believe both, I think that ignoramus Isaac Newton made the same mistake.

You can believe both, but why would you want to?

If you read the gospels and Acts, Jesus and the apostles gained converts by performing miracles. Today, it is science does that. If you have cancer, you have a far better chance of recovery by going to a doctor than a preacher.

Joe: Yes us American Christians are also very primitive. we worship the ancient superstition known as "logic." In that ancient lore you committed the sin of guilt by association. Just because Chinese peasants are religious doesn't mean modern highly educated Western thinkers are religious for the same reasons as the Chinese peasants. When we make mistakes we make modern scientific mistakes like you do.

I did not say anything like that.

Joe: I was an atheist. I became a Christian and converted from atheism.

But you were raised in a Christian country, likely by Christian parents. Why else would you be a Christian rather than a Hindu or Muslim?

Pix

You can believe both, but why would you want to?

cause they are both true

If you read the gospels and Acts, Jesus and the apostles gained converts by performing miracles. Today, it is science does that. If you have cancer, you have a far better chance of recovery by going to a doctor than a preacher.

you have not read scripture very carefully, here are many reasons people believed. I have documented modern miracles.


Joe: Yes us American Christians are also very primitive. we worship the ancient superstition known as "logic." In that ancient lore you committed the sin of guilt by association. Just because Chinese peasants are religious doesn't mean modern highly educated Western thinkers are religious for the same reasons as the Chinese peasants. When we make mistakes we make modern scientific mistakes like you do.

I did not say anything like that.


then why did you mention Chinese peasants?

Joe: I was an atheist. I became a Christian and converted from atheism.

But you were raised in a Christian country, likely by Christian parents. Why else would you be a Christian rather than a Hindu or Muslim?

because Jesus answered when I called on him. Vishnu did not
Anonymous said…
Joe: cause they are both true

Science is true (which is to say a very good model of the world), and can be demonstrated to be so. It is your opinion Christianity is true, but Hindus are just as sure Hinduism is true, etc.

Joe: you have not read scripture very carefully, here are many reasons people believed.

You did not read my post very carefully. I never said converts were gained exclusively by miracles.

Joe: I have documented modern miracles.

And I can document instances where a miracle was lacking. Any number of natural disasters for example.

Joe: then why did you mention Chinese peasants?

I did not. I said most of the Chinese people believe in folk religion. You are the one who thinks they must all be peasants.

And my point was about people adopting Christianity when it is not part of their culture, which is very different to the situation in the US.

Joe: because Jesus answered when I called on him. Vishnu did not

And Hindus are equally adamant they know Vishnu is some similar manner. The difference is, they have parents who were Hindus, not Christians.

Pix
Anonymous said…
You have a better chance of being healed of cancer by going to a doctor? What world are you living in? They will just give you poisonous radiation and chemo. I know. That's what happened to my mom.
Anonymous said…
Cancer survival in the UK has doubled from 24% to 50% in the last 40 years. That improvement is not because people are praying - church attendance is at an all-time low. It is because medicine is improving, i.e., because of science.

I appreciate the treatments are not pleasant, and there is still only a 50% survival rate, which is not ideal, but to suppose you do not have a better chance of survival if you get medical help is ridiculous.

Pix
BK said…
Joe: Christianity is competing with science? Funny I didn't know science promised to save our souls or that Christianity explains physics. I always thought we could believe both, I think that ignoramus Isaac Newton made the same mistake.

Pix: You can believe both, but why would you want to?


And thus sums up all of Pix's arguments.
Anonymous said…
Cancer survival in the UK has doubled from 24% to 50% in the last 40 years. That improvement is not because people are praying - church attendance is at an all-time low. It is because medicine is improving, i.e., because of science.

why should that be a criteria or the truth of religion? where does Christianity claim to be about healing physical illness? Historically God is used miraculous healing as a sign, people still experience that today. But nowhere does the Bile promise regular healings. Why should that be the litmus test?



I appreciate the treatments are not pleasant, and there is still only a 50% survival rate, which is not ideal, but to suppose you do not have a better chance of survival if you get medical help is ridiculous.

quite a stupid irrelevant argument. The assumptions you are making are extremely ignorant. Nowhere does any Christian document offer survival of physical illness as a major indication of Christian truth,
Joe: because Jesus answered when I called on him. Vishnu did not

Px: And Hindus are equally adamant they know Vishnu is some similar manner. The difference is, they have parents who were Hindus, not Christians.

I read the Bahagivod Gita after I had rejected Christianity. I expected it to give me answers Christianity had not given me. But it did not. I rejected my parent's faith but found it again on my own. As for a comparison of faiths the truth of God is filtered through cultural constructs that's why there are different faiths. The same God is there regardless of the level of comprehension.
Anonymous said…
Joe: why should that be a criteria or the truth of religion? where does Christianity claim to be about healing physical illness? Historically God is used miraculous healing as a sign, people still experience that today. But nowhere does the Bile promise regular healings. Why should that be the litmus test?

You are missing the point - which is odd, as the point is the subject of your blog post. This is about why Christian belief is declining, which is quite different to whether it is true or not.

Christianity was originally sold - at least in part - on the miracles. The healing was a sign Jesus really was from God, and that gave his message authority. As you say, it never said it would heal everyone, but it did heal some.

Where is that today? Recovery from illness appears to have no correlation with prayer. Perhaps you can cite miraculous recoveries, but these things happen regardless of the religion of the sick.

Today, people look to science to explain the universe because it is science that offers the miracles. Not just healing, but we can talk to people on the other side of the world, we have television and even mundane things like bright colours thanks to science. What has God done for us recently? What appeal does Christianity have to modern people who have not been raised to automatically assume the bible is true?

Joe: quite a stupid irrelevant argument. The assumptions you are making are extremely ignorant. Nowhere does any Christian document offer survival of physical illness as a major indication of Christian truth,

It is irrelevant because I was replying to JBsptfn on another topic.

Joe: I read the Bahagivod Gita after I had rejected Christianity. I expected it to give me answers Christianity had not given me. But it did not. I rejected my parent's faith but found it again on my own. As for a comparison of faiths the truth of God is filtered through cultural constructs that's why there are different faiths. The same God is there regardless of the level of comprehension.

So like the vast majority of theists all around the world, you have adopted the religion of your parents. In your case they were Christians, so you became a Christian. If they had been Hindus, the probability is very high the Bahagivod Gita would have had all those answers, and you would now be certain Hinduism is true.

Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: why should that be a criteria or the truth of religion? where does Christianity claim to be about healing physical illness? Historically God is used miraculous healing as a sign, people still experience that today. But nowhere does the Bile promise regular healings. Why should that be the litmus test?

should say "a criterion" sorry.


You are missing the point - which is odd, as the point is the subject of your blog post. This is about why Christian belief is declining, which is quite different to whether it is true or not.


that's not why it's declining. in fact it's not declining see my post on metacrock's blog.To the extent that non-affixation is on the rise it is not because people think there are no miracles.

Christianity was originally sold - at least in part - on the miracles. The healing was a sign Jesus really was from God, and that gave his message authority. As you say, it never said it would heal everyone, but it did heal some.

that does not mean it has to be that way today. Healing was always rare it was never meant to replace medicine

Where is that today? Recovery from illness appears to have no correlation with prayer. Perhaps you can cite miraculous recoveries, but these things happen regardless of the religion of the sick.

people don't look for that it is not a factor in non-affilaton

Today, people look to science to explain the universe because it is science that offers the miracles. Not just healing, but we can talk to people on the other side of the world, we have television and even mundane things like bright colours thanks to science. What has God done for us recently? What appeal does Christianity have to modern people who have not been raised to automatically assume the bible is true?

none of that competes with belief in Jesus. compete means you can't do both at the same time. You can believe in Jesus and modern technology and medicine, so they don't compete. science never promises to save our souls.

Joe: quite a stupid irrelevant argument. The assumptions you are making are extremely ignorant. Nowhere does any Christian document offer survival of physical illness as a major indication of Christian truth,

It is irrelevant because I was replying to JBsptfn on another topic.

et you answered my objections twice before without this knowledge.

Joe: I read the Bahagivod Gita after I had rejected Christianity. I expected it to give me answers Christianity had not given me. But it did not. I rejected my parent's faith but found it again on my own. As for a comparison of faiths the truth of God is filtered through cultural constructs that's why there are different faiths. The same God is there regardless of the level of comprehension.

So like the vast majority of theists all around the world, you have adopted the religion of your parents. In your case they were Christians, so you became a Christian. If they had been Hindus, the probability is very high the Bahagivod Gita would have had all those answers, and you would now be certain Hinduism is true.

so what? like your parents you speak English does that make English bad? did you catch the part about how I reacted it then found it again on my own?

btw no other faith has Jesus now if Jesus was who he claimed to be that makes having him important.
Px says: --Personally, I think it can only go down, as the primary reason for believing in Christianity is that you were raised in a Christian culture. As the culture becomes less Christian, less Christians will be raised.

--The evidence for this is very clear; Hindus come from Hindu families, Muslims come from Muslim families, Christians come from Christian families. People do not follow a religion because of the evidence, they follow it because they were told it was true from an early age.

this us not deep penetrating analysis it's shallow thinking, it refuses to understand the actual reasons for the choices people make. It naively assumes all Christian view points are he same.

Example I became a different type of Christian from which I was raised in, and my parents also made the same change, independently of each other.
Anonymous said…
Joe: that's not why it's declining. in fact it's not declining see my post on metacrock's blog.To the extent that non-affixation is on the rise it is not because people think there are no miracles.

The lack of miracles is why it will not recover from the decline.

People become Christians because they are conditioned to just assume it is true from an early age - which is the case in the US and Europe - or because they see excellent evidence, sufficient for them to abandon their existing beliefs - which would seem to be the case for early Christianity (and maybe what is happening in China where it is competing with folk religion).

Christianity is declining in part because people do not care, and if they do not care, they are not going to pass it on to their kids. That is likely to be a problem with those non-affiliated too; I would guess it is far less likely that their kids will be conditioned to assume the Bible is true, so while the parents will be non-affiliated, the kids will be atheist (by default, admittedly).

Joe: that does not mean it has to be that way today. Healing was always rare it was never meant to replace medicine

In Jesus' time, medicine was little better than, well, prayer. Half a dozen healings would have been wondrous. Today, modern medicine has raised the bar. Today, miracles are competing against a much, much better health system, and, to be frank, it loses.

As you say, that does not matter for Christians - but it does for non-Christians. Christianity has lost its appeal to non-Christians. The decline is not reversible.

Joe: people don't look for that it is not a factor in non-affilaton

No, but it is a factor in recruiting new people to Christianity.

Joe: none of that competes with belief in Jesus. compete means you can't do both at the same time. You can believe in Jesus and modern technology and medicine, so they don't compete. science never promises to save our souls.

Of course they compete, though they are not mutually exclusive.

You say "science never promises to save our souls". Why should we suppose our souls need saving? Or even that we have souls?

You automatically assume that that is true, because you were raised to believe that by Christian parents. It was instilled in you from an early age; to you it is just a fact.

For anyone outside of Christian culture, that is not the case. Why should a Hindu imagine his soul needs to be saved? He will not. Virtually all Christian arguments ultimately come down to:

* The Bible is true
* Therefore the Bible is true

This is true of pretty much all your arguments, as well as the ones I find on the Internet at CARM and elsewhere. That works for you and your fellow Christians, you were raised in a Christian culture that just assumed the Bible is true. But you will not recruit anyone from outside Christian cultures with those arguments.

Joe: btw no other faith has Jesus now if Jesus was who he claimed to be that makes having him important.

A great illustration of what I just said. If we assume the Bible is true, you are of course right! But only someone raised in a strong Christian culture will assume the Bible is true.

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: that's not why it's declining. in fact it's not declining see my post on metacrock's blog.To the extent that non-affiliation is on the rise it is not because people think there are no miracles.

The lack of miracles is why it will not recover from the decline.

what decline? 3% in 100 years?


People become Christians because they are conditioned to just assume it is true from an early age - which is the case in the US and Europe - or because they see excellent evidence, sufficient for them to abandon their existing beliefs - which would seem to be the case for early Christianity (and maybe what is happening in China where it is competing with folk religion).



Christianity is declining in part because people do not care, and if they do not care, they are not going to pass it on to their kids. That is likely to be a problem with those non-affiliated too; I would guess it is far less likely that their kids will be conditioned to assume the Bible is true, so while the parents will be non-affiliated, the kids will be atheist (by default, admittedly).

Joe: that does not mean it has to be that way today. Healing was always rare it was never meant to replace medicine

In Jesus' time, medicine was little better than, well, prayer. Half a dozen healings would have been wondrous. Today, modern medicine has raised the bar. Today, miracles are competing against a much, much better health system, and, to be frank, it loses.

As you say, that does not matter for Christians - but it does for non-Christians. Christianity has lost its appeal to non-Christians. The decline is not reversible.

Joe: people don't look for that it is not a factor in non-affilaton

No, but it is a factor in recruiting new people to Christianity.

Joe: none of that competes with belief in Jesus. compete means you can't do both at the same time. You can believe in Jesus and modern technology and medicine, so they don't compete. science never promises to save our souls.

Of course they compete, though they are not mutually exclusive.

You say "science never promises to save our souls". Why should we suppose our souls need saving? Or even that we have souls?

You automatically assume that that is true, because you were raised to believe that by Christian parents. It was instilled in you from an early age; to you it is just a fact.

For anyone outside of Christian culture, that is not the case. Why should a Hindu imagine his soul needs to be saved? He will not. Virtually all Christian arguments ultimately come down to:

* The Bible is true
* Therefore the Bible is true

This is true of pretty much all your arguments, as well as the ones I find on the Internet at CARM and elsewhere. That works for you and your fellow Christians, you were raised in a Christian culture that just assumed the Bible is true. But you will not recruit anyone from outside Christian cultures with those arguments.

Joe: btw no other faith has Jesus now if Jesus was who he claimed to be that makes having him important.

A great illustration of what I just said. If we assume the Bible is true, you are of course right! But only someone raised in a strong Christian culture will assume the Bible is true.

Pix

Jesus himself is the point. Speaking of 'the bible is true' is simplistic amd ignorant,
Joe: none of that competes with belief in Jesus. compete means you can't do both at the same time. You can believe in Jesus and modern technology and medicine, so they don't compete. science never promises to save our souls.

Of course they compete, though they are not mutually exclusive.

How?

You say "science never promises to save our souls". Why should we suppose our souls need saving? Or even that we have souls?

Irrelevant, The point is science and religion are about different things, they don't compete

You automatically assume that that is true, because you were raised to believe that by Christian parents. It was instilled in you from an early age; to you it is just a fact.

get t through your head limy, I believe it's true because I weighed the relevant info and saw through my own experience that it best speaks to the human condition,

For anyone outside of Christian culture, that is not the case. Why should a Hindu imagine his soul needs to be saved? He will not.


Yes he will. All religions do the same thing they just express it differently; they all assess the human problematic and respond to it with ultimate transformative experience.

Virtually all Christian arguments ultimately come down to:

* The Bible is true
* Therefore the Bible is true

bull shit. you are so hung up on hating religion you don't bother to analyze arguments, your skills at argumentation suck.


This is true of pretty much all your arguments, as well as the ones I find on the Internet at CARM and elsewhere. That works for you and your fellow Christians, you were raised in a Christian culture that just assumed the Bible is true. But you will not recruit anyone from outside Christian cultures with those arguments.

you are full of shit you don't have the understanding to evaluate my arguments, what you are really saying is religion must be wrong a priori. you come from a world where relining is shunned as outmoded, so you you reject it a priori it doesn't matter what evidence support's it..

Joe: btw no other faith has Jesus now if Jesus was who he claimed to be that makes having him important.

A great illustration of what I just said. If we assume the Bible is true, you are of course right! But only someone raised in a strong Christian culture will assume the Bible is true.

Pix

That doesn't disprove it. it doesn't make it wrong you are just afraid to make a stand. All you said is believers believe. we know, so what?

Popular posts from this blog

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

Exodus 22:18 - Are Followers of God to Kill Witches?

Revamping and New Articles at the CADRE Site

The Bogus Gandhi Quote

Discussing Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Why Christian Theism Is Almost Certainly True: A Reply to Cale Nearing

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

Scientifically Documented Miracles

The Criteria of Embarrassment and Jesus' Baptism in the Gospel of Mark

The Meaning of the Manger