Religious Conversions

At the end of the Subjective Evidence of Gods thread a rather off-topic discussion regarding religious conversions started up. Chuck77 seems intent on the idea that hordes of Moslems are converting to Christianity. He also seems to think that the reverse (i.e. Christians converting to Islam) is a rarity. In this thread I would like to ask two questions:1) What is the actual evidence regarding inter-faith conversions? Are there any reliable statistics on such things?2) More importantly as far as I am concerned - Why does anyone think this matters? What does it tell us about the relative worth of different religions if people are converting from one to another?Personally I have no frikkin idea who is converting from what to what. But I deeply suspect most of the main religions will be claiming converts in some sort of subjective pique of propaganda.And as for why people convert - Well a myriad of reasons might make one faith more appealing than another to any given individual. But any suggestion that it has to do with the truth of one religion over another is, in the absence of any other evidence, surely just the fallacy of argumentum ad populum is it not?So - Who is converting from what to what and why on Earth does anyone think it matters?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Wiki on religious conversions seemed like an obvious place to start. Plus a whole load of other data and statements which can no doubt add fuel to the fire here.But still I ask - Why does it matter? What does the relative appeal of a particular religion tell us?

Is that it? Is that your indisputable evidence?Over in the other thread you got very belligerent about the undeniable truth of your assertions. Simply because I questioned them you started subheading your posts with things like "Straggler is always right every time eternity infinity" and enlisting the support of RAZD to your conversion rate cause Message 444I'll ask again - Is it true?Please note that simply asserting something doesn't make it true. Please note that you simply repeating something doesn't make it true either. Please note that even the anecdotal evidence you have supplied in support of your claims has been shown to be dubiously sourced. (See Dr A reply in Message 458)So do you have anything other than anecdotes? Because we could sit here all day quoting competing conversion anecdotes at each other but there wouldn't be much point because we can hopefully both agree that anecdotes are not evidence of your statistical claims. Right? Have you considered a simple Google on the topic more widely? Wiki on religious conversions seemed like an obvious place to start. And still you haven't answered my original question - Why do you think it actually matters who is converting from what to what anyway? Do you think it is indicative of the truth of a religion?Is the Guinness book of records statement above evidence of the superior truth of Islam?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Are you actually going to provide some basis for this claim of yours that "there are MANY more muslims converting to christianity than the other way around".....? Or not? Yes - And if you had read past the title you would have seen that it discusses the different ways religions grow. One of the ways in which religions grow, and that the link discusses, is by conversion. Conversion is the topic. And with regard to conversion the link I provided says: Wiki on religious conversionsNow I have no idea how the Guinness Book of Records assesses such things. But I would hazard a guess that they have done more research than you have. So.....1) If you think this is inaccurate can you provide a more authoritative and equally nonpartisan source that contradicts this?
2) Do you think that the number of conversion a religion has is in some way indicative of the truth of that religion over others?In short - On what basis are you so convinced that "there are MANY more muslims converting to christianity than the other way around" and why on Earth do you think it matters who is converting from what to what anyway?Do you think you could actually address these questions in your next post?

Chuck you have (very belligerently) made a very statistical claim. You didn't say "There are lots of anecdotes of Moslems converting to Christianity". You said "there are MANY more muslims converting to christianity than the other way around". Now unless you are going to gather a testimonial from every single Moslem who ever converted to Christianity and every Christian who ever converted to Islam, add them up and then show your claim to be true, testimonials are not going to support your statistical claim are they?Is there any reliable statistical research basis for your assertion that "there are MANY more muslims converting to christianity than the other way around".....? Or not?If not - Are we just going to quote competing conversion testimonials at each other for the rest of this thread? Well what research has he done? Any wally can assert that they think there are more people converting from one religion to another (you have already demonstrated that). But that doesn't make it true. Not at all. I think the Guinness Book of Records is pretty flawed as sources go. But it at least isn't an overtly religious group with an overt religious agenda. And it at least has a record of doing some sort of research.......If you have a better statistical source I am happy to consider it. But in the meantime - If the Guinness Book of Records claim is indeed correct does this mean that Islam is somehow more true than Christianity?

In a development that will shake Christianity to it's core Christ has become a a Moslem!!!!! Christ Converts to Islam

Yep those Islamists are a wise old bunch. As evidenced by their status as the most converted to religion....

Let’s just remind ourselves of your original claim and the rather assertive manner in which you made it: Message 444 Despite your rather antagonistic approach it appears that you are utterly unable to justify this statistical claim of yours. As demonstrated most comprehensively in this thread by Granny Magda and Rahvin. I suggest that if you are going to make claims in such an unnecessarily robust manner in future you at least select a topic in which you are confident of being able to make an evidenced case. Otherwise you just end up looking foolish. The above link isn’t evidence of more Christians converting to Islam than vice versa. Or any other such statistical assertion. But it arguably is a case of the proclivity of believers to create a sort of propaganda based approach to the whole conversion thing. You are far from the first believer to conclude that there are hordes of others converting away from different faiths as a result of seeing the error of their ways. You are far from the first believer to conclude that these hordes of converters are some sort of evidence of the veracity of one religion over another. The problem — As with all these things is that all any of you really have is deep personal conviction and testimonies that you find personally significant.None of it is evidence of anything meaningful at all.

That Chuck is convinced I don't think is in doubt. That the links and references he provides have been written by those who are convinced of similar conclusions to his, I don't think, is in doubt. But when we question Chuck's conclusions he treats it as some sort of personal slight on him and those who he references. He treats our refusal to accept this conviction as evidence as if we are actually accusing him (and those he references) of lying. It is almost as if Chuck just cannot grasp the idea that we accept his conviction, we accept his testimonials as genuine cases, we accept the convictiojn of those he quotes etc. but still reject that these things support his ultimate conclusion.Ultimately I don't think Chuck really understands why his testimonial type evidence is not legitimate as a means of supporting his statistical claim. Or why the equally passionate but mutually exclusive conviction of others (in this case Molsems convinced that Christians are converting to Islam in droves) should be considered just as valid as his own "evidence". You and I know from past experience together that explaining to advocates of "subjective evidence" what they "should" or "should not" find convincing is a fruitless task. By definition they will find convincing the subjective "evidence" that supports their subjective conclusions. Because that is what subjective "evidence" is.Ultimately this is about what actually qualifies as evidence and what doesn't. Why certains forms of "evidence" deserve quotation marks. And what it actually means to "know" or conclude something rather than just believe it with deep conviction. It's all epistemology. Every argument at EvC essentially boils down to epistemology.But most of that (I suspect) will be beyond Chuck. So we shall just keep bashing our heads on the wall of unwavering ignorance trying to explain to him why it is that the deep personal conviction expressed by him and his sources doesn't ultimately support his original claims in the way that he believes they do.

Yep - Good reply. I would give you a cheer but you are operating at a perfect 10 already!!!Don't for one minute think that my description of "fruitless" means that I am about to throw the towel in and give it up as a lost cause. It's far to much fun for that!! And ultimately I share your more optimistic approach.Now - Where were we? Ah yes. Converting Chuck........

Don't get me wrong - I quite like Chuck too. But when he said this.... ....you have to admit he was being a bit of a dick and deserved to be pulled up on both the claim and the manner in which it was made.

Etc.So what we have are Christian sources claiming that Moslems are converting to Christianity in droves and Islamic sources claiming that masses of Christians are doing the opposite. Meanwhile we have the Guinness Book of records (a rather poor but at least non-partisan source) describing Islam as the most converted to religion.What we don't have is any actual data on which any such statistical claim can be meaningfully made (I would like to see how the Guinness Book of records came to their conclusion before I accepted it). In short we don't really have any meaningful evidence at all. And the Islamic sources above would say the exact same but opposite thing. Such is the futility of drawing any conclusion at all on the basis of such "evidence". I never doubted your belief or conviction. That you believed what you were saying was true wasn't really in doubt.When I asked "Is that actually true?" in response to your initial claim I wasn't asking if you really believed it. I was asking if it was true. In response you kicked off with all sorts of belligerent nonsense. And me being me I wasn't going to take that as anything other than some sort of challenge. Which is why I started this thread. So where are we now? What have we learned? You believe on the basis of some testimonials you find personally convincing and on the basis of some highly partisan sources to which you have an obvious subjective allegiance. Likewise numerous Moslems believe the exact opposite to you on the exact same "evidential" basis. So what (I think) we have learned is the following:1) Some religions consider it some sort of vindication of their veracity over other religions as to how many people convert. This is essentially the fallacy of Argumentum ad Populum2) The ardent followers of some religions are highly prone to drawing very firm conclusions on the basis of forms of evidence that are wholly unreliable. Utter conviction is derived from testimonials and sources which produce material so partisan it would be called "propaganda" in other contexts.In short many of the ardently faithful live in a sort of evidential bubble. They hear testimonies and are exposed to sources that confirm everything they believe. And the more their beliefs are confirmed the more incredulous they become that their beliefs are not as self-evidently correct as they believe them to be. How could people exposed to the truth possibly be converting away from rather, than towards, truths which are so obviously true to me? Meanwhile they fail to realise that the exact same but opposite claims are being made with equal conviction by those who live in a different theological bubble.I say - Pop the bubbles.

Then I suggest we all just call Him Cyril.