What are the superiorities of Christianity over Islam ?

Ven. Kwan Tam Woo · **#101** by **Ven. Kwan Tam Woo** » Apr 29, 2016 7:22 am

The point of my estimates are to provide an idea of how the composition of western Europe's population vis a vis Muslims and non-Muslims might change over the coming decades. My estimates omit a number of key factors (including the fact that 1990-2010 had unusually high immigration from eastern Europe after the fall of Communism) in order to make them conservative. Even if, by some huge stroke of good luck, the Muslim percentages only turn out to be half as much by 2050 and 2100, western Europe is still facing serious trouble.

Thommo · **#102** by **Thommo** » Apr 29, 2016 7:28 am

But as I've now explained at length your estimates accomplish none of those things.

They aren't conservative estimates, they are wildly, insanely reckless and over the top. It wouldn't be luck for the actual percentages to be half of your predictions, that itself would involve one of the most injudicious over the top predictions to ever grace these forums being made.

I showed you what happens if you forecast linear growth rates over that period back in #71, and you can see that the numbers don't come out anywhere near half - and those aren't conservative predictions.

Scot Dutchy · **#103** by **Scot Dutchy** » Apr 29, 2016 9:06 am

Ven. Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Scot Dutchy wrote:
kiore wrote:Your estimates, although I am certain are very well intentioned, assume no other changes, no social change, no secularization, no conversion to other religions either. Basically they assume 'Muslim' identification is a static condition and that what 'Muslim' means today will be what it means in the future. If we use history to teach us about future predictions and let us pick a country, say Australia where you indicate you reside. Go back a hundred years and project Church of England (Anglican) membership and calculate what the current attendance on Sundays would be. The Arch Bishop of Canterbury from 100 years ago would not believe you, why just look at the birth rate? The number of observant Anglicans must have expanded significantly in that time, must have on 1916 data.

This is what he does not understand. The influence of western society on muslims is dramatic. The freedom enjoyed by women cannot be over estimated. We dont have muslim schools so all muslims are exposed to normal education and all state schools are secular. This is not going to have any influence on these children? Just watch.

Have another hit from your hopium hookah...

Is that the best you can come up with? I am not surprised. Just like the figures you are quoting it is a load of crap.
In this country we have now negative migration and as more countries take on the very strict entrance examinations the more negative migration there will be but of course your calculations do not take that into account. You presume that all non-EU economic migrants will be received with open arms. Sorry the reverse is true. You want to stay here you have to integrate. The Dutch government has just reserved yesterday a further €700 million for integration. Integration also means deportation which happens here daily on a voluntary and non-voluntary basis.
Your figures are useless as are your arguments. You make the presumption that non-EU economic migrants will just have a free hand but sorry that is far from the truth especially after the terrorist attacks. Being a economic migrant from a safe country is not a healthy situation as for any reason you will find yourself returning to your homeland. The simple case of failing the language or citizen's examination is enough.

NineBerry · **#104** by **NineBerry** » Apr 29, 2016 9:46 am

Ven. Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
NineBerry wrote:
Ven. Kwan Tam Woo wrote:Late last year Saudi Arabia offered to finance the construction of 200 new Mosques in Germany.

Wrong. This was a hoax created by Lebanese newspaper Al Diyar. Both the German and the Saudi government when asked said they knew nothing about such an offer.

The Saudis denied the plan about 2 weeks after it surfaced in the mainstream media. The fact that a draconian theocratic government issued an official denial the wake of public outrage does NOT mean that it was a hoax!

The German government said there was no offer as well. I saw the Regierungssprecher make that statement on television in the government press conference two or three days after this was reported.

NineBerry · **#105** by **NineBerry** » Apr 29, 2016 10:01 am

We also know from history that Christianity has been spreading across the face of the globe like a cancer since it began 2000 years ago. We also know from history that once a region goes Christian it rarely goes back, and even then only as a result of monumental expense and bloodshed (e.g. the muslim conquest).

Ven. Kwan Tam Woo · **#106** by **Ven. Kwan Tam Woo** » May 03, 2016 1:31 am

Thommo wrote:But as I've now explained at length your estimates accomplish none of those things.

All my figures do is show what happens if recent trends continue. I never claimed anything more than that. Using historical total population figures obtained from Google for the same countries, exponential growth rates obtained from the period 1963-1983 yield very accurate forecasts of the actual 2013 population figures based on actual 1983 figures (in some cases the 2013 forecasts are slightly lower than the actual 2013 population figures). So I stand by my use of exponential growth rates, which are frequently used in population growth analysis and no worse than using any other form of growth rate (apart perhaps from logistic growth, which requires a known carrying capacity).

They aren't conservative estimates, they are wildly, insanely reckless and over the top. It wouldn't be luck for the actual percentages to be half of your predictions, that itself would involve one of the most injudicious over the top predictions to ever grace these forums being made.

I have already provided a number of reasons why my forecasts of population proportions are conservative, but apparently these are being steadfastly ignored. My forecasts omit the current mass migration, assume no future mass migrations of Muslims, do not factor in relative differences in Muslim and non-Muslim fertility, assume no increases in emigration rates, assume no changes in sources of net immigration, assume no usurpation of political power by Muslims, and do not account for the relative youth of the Muslim populations compared to the native European populations. All of these factors are likely to increase the Muslim proportion of the population to an even greater degree.

I showed you what happens if you forecast linear growth rates over that period back in #71, and you can see that the numbers don't come out anywhere near half - and those aren't conservative predictions.

Those linear growth rate projections are "dubious in the extreme" by your own admission in the same post. But at least you (implicitly) admit that majorities, or even significant minorities of Muslims are not at all desirable.

Ven. Kwan Tam Woo · **#107** by **Ven. Kwan Tam Woo** » May 03, 2016 1:35 am

NineBerry wrote:
Ven. Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
NineBerry wrote:
Ven. Kwan Tam Woo wrote:Late last year Saudi Arabia offered to finance the construction of 200 new Mosques in Germany.

Wrong. This was a hoax created by Lebanese newspaper Al Diyar. Both the German and the Saudi government when asked said they knew nothing about such an offer.

The Saudis denied the plan about 2 weeks after it surfaced in the mainstream media. The fact that a draconian theocratic government issued an official denial the wake of public outrage does NOT mean that it was a hoax!

The German government said there was no offer as well. I saw the Regierungssprecher make that statement on television in the government press conference two or three days after this was reported.

Of course they did. Merkel and friends have pissed off enough German voters as it is. I wouldn't be surprised if it was the German government which asked the Saudis to issue their denial.

Ven. Kwan Tam Woo · **#108** by **Ven. Kwan Tam Woo** » May 03, 2016 1:51 am

NineBerry wrote:
We also know from history that Christianity has been spreading across the face of the globe like a cancer since it began 2000 years ago. We also know from history that once a region goes Christian it rarely goes back, and even then only as a result of monumental expense and bloodshed (e.g. the muslim conquest).

Oh FFS, this asinine tu quoque is so old it's fossilized.

You do realize that Levant, Egypt, the Maghreb, Turkey and Albania were all once Christian, right? Having two thirds of it's territory and three of its five major religious centers permanently taken away in a matter of decades hardly seems consistent with the idea that Christianity has spread across the world like a cancer. Nor does the fact that Christianity has been undergoing schisms throughout its history such that even the largest denomination barely makes up half of the total Christian population (whereas the Sunni sect makes up 90% of the Muslim population).

Western Europe, Canada, New Zealand and Australia are going back as we speak. These places are currently "going back" to agnosticism and atheism without any bloodshed. Unfortunately this state of affairs probably won't last much longer; nature abhors an ideological vacuum just as much as she abhors a physical or demographic one.

Thommo · **#109** by **Thommo** » May 03, 2016 2:02 am

Ven. Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Thommo wrote:But as I've now explained at length your estimates accomplish none of those things.

All my figures do is show what happens if recent trends continue.

But they don't do that. My frustration the other day at having to explain this repeatedly because you wouldn't explain what you'd done or show your working was coming through by the time I wrote this.

Ven. Kwan Tam Woo wrote:I never claimed anything more than that. Using historical total population figures obtained from Google for the same countries, exponential growth rates obtained from the period 1963-1983 yield very accurate forecasts of the actual 2013 population figures based on actual 1983 figures (in some cases the 2013 forecasts are slightly lower than the actual 2013 population figures).

Show your work. You can fit an exponential distribution to any two data points and get a 100% perfect fit, just as you can fit a linear distribution to any two data points and get a 100% perfect fit. Or a quadratic, or cubic or any other function under the sun.

Ven. Kwan Tam Woo wrote:So I stand by my use of exponential growth rates, which are frequently used in population growth analysis and no worse than using any other form of growth rate (apart perhaps from logistic growth, which requires a known carrying capacity).

They are used where there are known parameters, in particular that there is little feedback effect from competition for resources. But they are used for breeding and not for migration. The reason for that is because If the birth rate is fixed, then the growth rate will be exponential. There are two important details about that (i) That is not a fixed growth rate assumption (as you repeatedly said incorrectly) and (ii) Where population growth is dominated by migration the distribution will be a poor fit - because migration has an inverse feedback effect from births at a fixed birth rate.

Ven. Kwan Tam Woo wrote:I have already provided a number of reasons why my forecasts of population proportions are conservative, but apparently these are being steadfastly ignored.

Not ignored, debunked. And I think you overestimate your reasoning, you haven't even shown your working or correctly described your method yet. Confusing a fixed birth rate with a fixed growth rate and confusing the resultant distribution from a fixed birth rate being exponential (which it is) with the resultant distribution from a fixed immigration rate being exponential (which it is not, it is linear). The linear forecasts (i.e. using what you stated your assumptions were) is vastly different to what your figures were, by hundreds of years or more. When your forecasts are orders of magnitude greater than a linear forecast from your own assumptions, they are in absolutely no way conservative.

Ven. Kwan Tam Woo wrote:My forecasts omit the current mass migration, assume no future mass migrations of Muslims, do not factor in relative differences in Muslim and non-Muslim fertility, assume no increases in emigration rates, assume no changes in sources of net immigration, assume no usurpation of political power by Muslims, and do not account for the relative youth of the Muslim populations compared to the native European populations. All of these factors are likely to increase the Muslim proportion of the population to an even greater degree.

Some of those assumptions don't actually appear to have been made, but all pale into significance if you use an exponential term which (by definition) dominates each and every other factor beyond all compare and in short order.

But again, since you won't show your working it's impossible to validate your assumptions anyway, so they should be dismissed from the conversation. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Ven. Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
I showed you what happens if you forecast linear growth rates over that period back in #71, and you can see that the numbers don't come out anywhere near half - and those aren't conservative predictions.

Those linear growth rate projections are "dubious in the extreme" by your own admission in the same post. But at least you (implicitly) admit that majorities, or even significant minorities of Muslims are not at all desirable.

They are dubious because they are extrapolations. That is true whatever distribution one fits. They are vastly less dubious than deliberately using the most extreme possible function that blows up to infinity more rapidly than any other type of function. Extrapolation with exponentials is exponentially more dubious, the error term is exponential instead of linear.

And no, I did not admit any such thing. I expressed no view one way or the other.

Ven. Kwan Tam Woo · **#110** by **Ven. Kwan Tam Woo** » May 03, 2016 2:10 am

Scot Dutchy wrote:
Ven. Kwan Tam Woo wrote:
Scot Dutchy wrote:

This is what he does not understand. The influence of western society on muslims is dramatic. The freedom enjoyed by women cannot be over estimated. We dont have muslim schools so all muslims are exposed to normal education and all state schools are secular. This is not going to have any influence on these children? Just watch.

Have another hit from your hopium hookah...

Is that the best you can come up with? I am not surprised.

No it's not the best I can come up with, but it's the best your response deserves.

Just like the figures you are quoting it is a load of crap.

Only time will tell if they're a load of crap. All my figures are meant to do is give an idea of what happens if things keep going the way they're going, i.e. NOT including the current mass migration. But if you have so much disdain for my figures, then by all means give us your own analysis.

In this country we have now negative migration and as more countries take on the very strict entrance examinations the more negative migration there will be but of course your calculations do not take that into account.

No they don't explicitly account for that, and I never pretended that they did. So more people are leaving than arriving. Okay, who's leaving then? What is the net Muslim emigration vs the net non-Muslim emigration?

You presume that all non-EU economic migrants will be received with open arms.

No I don't. Re-read my stated assumptions.

Sorry the reverse is true. You want to stay here you have to integrate. The Dutch government has just reserved yesterday a further €700 million for integration. Integration also means deportation which happens here daily on a voluntary and non-voluntary basis.

What does "integration" mean in this context? At what rate is this deportation happening, and how much of it is deportation of Muslims as opposed to non-Muslims?

Your figures are useless as are your arguments.

My figures are informed guesses. Informed guesses =! useless. What of my arguments are useless, and how are they useless?

You make the presumption that non-EU economic migrants will just have a free hand

No I don't.

but sorry that is far from the truth especially after the terrorist attacks.

Well I certainly hope so! I certainly hope the Dutch respond in a more impressive manner than "men" dressing up in mini-skirts to protest mass sex attacks.

Being a economic migrant from a safe country is not a healthy situation as for any reason you will find yourself returning to your homeland. The simple case of failing the language or citizen's examination is enough.

Be careful, you might get labelled as a far-right racist if you say things like that! :lol:

Thommo · **#111** by **Thommo** » May 03, 2016 2:53 am

Which graph shape fits better over that kind of period?

Of course we could fit the "flat" part of the exponential curve to the growth, which will work in cases of very small compounded growth rates. For example, if we look at how much the linear growth of 0.24% per year differs from exponential growth of 0.24% per year over 30 years (so the general rates of growth in Austria looked at before), we see that the difference in the forecasts is only 0.26% over 30 years. A prediction whether exponential or linear will be about the same.

On the other hand what happens if the growth rate is 5.4% (so the rate of Muslim growth in Austria, driven by immigration, that we saw before)? Then the difference is 222.4% over 30 years.

So yes, where the deviation from linear is 0.26% one can fit an exponential curve that looks flat and get a very similar answer (not that either linear or exponential extrapolation fits well at all over the period stipulated - because of the drop in population for half of that period). Where the difference is a thousand times greater that assumption and its corollaries are a thousand times less valid.

In the particular case that was worked through earlier, for Austria in #80, this means that if we work through what you described in #106 as a "very accurate forecast", then we can make an exponential extrapolation of total population and an exponential extrapolation of non Muslim population and get figures of 10,553,649 and 9,038,460 in 2069. Or a prediction that Austria will be 86% non Muslim in 2069. The year that you claimed a fixed growth rate would forecast a (conservative!) Muslim proportion of over 50%.

Scot Dutchy · **#112** by **Scot Dutchy** » May 03, 2016 9:09 am

Ven. Kwan Tam Woo

I have reported your reply to my post for misquoting and misrepresentation. You cant do that and hopefully the mods will take the appropriate action.

Fallible · **#113** by **Fallible** » May 03, 2016 9:13 am

I want to know what he means by ''men''.

Thommo · **#114** by **Thommo** » May 03, 2016 9:46 am

Fallible wrote:I want to know what he means by ''men''.

Obvs.

NineBerry · **#115** by **NineBerry** » May 03, 2016 9:50 am

Thommo wrote:

Which graph shape fits better over that kind of period?

Thommo · **#116** by **Thommo** » May 03, 2016 10:15 am

I have no idea what point you're trying to make NineBerry, the truncated axis is not misleading at all in either of those pictures.

The latter picture shows the general shape of families of curves. When fitting data the y-axis intercept can be fitted to any value.

Thommo · **#117** by **Thommo** » May 03, 2016 10:28 am

From the data I was messing around with in all this, here's Austria's population growth fitted to a simple exponential growth rate (that is so that the start and end points necessarily match) for 1983-2013. Also plotted are the actual growth and a non-matched linear forecast based on the same growth rate.

As you can see, you can't see a bloody thing about the shapes because the y-axis is not appropriate, Unlike the one that wikipedia has posted, which allows you to see the shape of the actual growth (note, that covers a longer period going back to about 1900, but I didn't have that data on hand to produce a graph so far back).

NineBerry · **#118** by **NineBerry** » May 03, 2016 11:47 am

It shows exactly what one needs to know: That there is hardly any growth (in relation to the absolute value).

Thommo · **#119** by **Thommo** » May 03, 2016 11:51 am

Two and a half million people on a population of six million is not "hardly any" (and nor is a million people in 30 years from 1983-2013, a growth of 13%), and further that is not what the graphs I posted were showing anyway, which was about shape, for the purposes of distribution fitting.

You didn't actually explain your post though, how exactly do you feel misled?

NineBerry · **#120** by **NineBerry** » May 03, 2016 11:56 am

The version with the full Y axis shows much better that one cannot conclude a shape (dimension of growth) from the numbers.

What are the superiorities of Christianity over Islam ?

Re: What are the superiorities of Christianity over Islam ?

Re: What are the superiorities of Christianity over Islam ?

Re: What are the superiorities of Christianity over Islam ?

Re: What are the superiorities of Christianity over Islam ?

Re: What are the superiorities of Christianity over Islam ?

Re: What are the superiorities of Christianity over Islam ?

Re: What are the superiorities of Christianity over Islam ?

Re: What are the superiorities of Christianity over Islam ?

Re: What are the superiorities of Christianity over Islam ?

Re: What are the superiorities of Christianity over Islam ?

Re: What are the superiorities of Christianity over Islam ?

Re: What are the superiorities of Christianity over Islam ?

Re: What are the superiorities of Christianity over Islam ?

Re: What are the superiorities of Christianity over Islam ?

Re: What are the superiorities of Christianity over Islam ?

Re: What are the superiorities of Christianity over Islam ?

Re: What are the superiorities of Christianity over Islam ?

Re: What are the superiorities of Christianity over Islam ?

Re: What are the superiorities of Christianity over Islam ?

Re: What are the superiorities of Christianity over Islam ?

Who is online