5 ms·

Effects have mechanisms. Not everything works by correlation. In fact nothing really works by correlation. Things work by causes. Indoctrination, that's pretty

Effects have mechanisms. Not everything works by correlation. In fact nothing really works by correlation. Things work by causes. Indoctrination, that's pretty effective, but so are heresy and sedition, and revolutions in thought, and sea-changes. Pew probably isn't monitoring those.

somenameforme 1y ago
People leaving some faith would obviously be the inverse of those who stay with it. So for Protestantism, it'd be 16%, or 11% for highly religious households. In deciding to look up the numbers for Islam, it's somewhat unsurprisingly only 1%. [1] --- "Based on survey data collected in 117 countries and territories from 2008 to 2024, we estimate that about 1% of people who are raised Muslim leave the faith. This loss is offset by a comparable influx of people joining Islam." --- Wiki has a nice table on Islam in particular here. [2] They broke 10% of the world population sometime around 1820. They broke 20% 170 years later, around 1990. And they're expected to to break 30% about 60 years after that, by 2050. We're trending towards a majority Muslim world, simply because of fertility, all the while people not having children somehow think people in the future will somehow share their values. [1] - https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/06/10/islam-was-the-worlds-fastest-growing-religion-from-2010-to-2020/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/06/10/islam-was... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_population_growth#Historical_Muslim_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_population_growth#Histo...
- shkkmo 1y ago
  Not really, if you look at the actual birth rates, it maps to economic success more than religious identity. Yes, we all know that global population growth is mainly happening in Africa and other poor countries. You also cite global retention rates for islam. Those retention rates are memetic and highly dependent on the same set of poorer, non-western countries so you are comparing applyes to oranges. If you look at western countries, the retention rate is pretty similar. You keep stretching statistics to reinforce your world view without trying to actually understand the statistics, which is why I assume you keep repeating garbage like "Any group that maintains a positive fertility rate will multiply indefinitely."
  - somenameforme 1y ago
    You are misinformed here. Islamic fertility rates within Europe remain high with an average of about one more child per woman. [1] This is why Muslims are expected to continue rapidly growing as an ever larger percentage of all Europeans, even in the scenario of 0 immigration. And this will continue indefinitely unless fertility rates markedly change. The same follows in places like the US, even just amongst Christians. [2] See the first figure (about 2/5ths of the way down the study) for an extremely informative graph. Intended and actual fertility rates for those who consider religion important remains healthy - at around 2.5 children. For those who it is not important or have no religion, it's around 1.5 children. It's easy to just handwave the fertility rate of developed economies while failing to consider the issue that fertility isn't just a random distribution within these countries. It's extremely biased, and religiosity is one of the most predictive factors. [1] - https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2017/11/29/europes-growing-muslim-population/ https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2017/11/29/europes-grow... [2] - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2723861/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2723861/
    - shkkmo 1y ago
      > unless fertility rates markedly change. Which seems highly likely. Fertility rates change far faster than they influence population demographics. > It's extremely biased, and religiosity is one of the most predictive factors. If you ignore income, education, economic opportunity and how many generations ago the family immigrated and all the other important factors. You keep trying to paint a simplistic picture of a complex dynamic.
      - somenameforme 1y ago
        You have, and continue to, make endlessly false claims, only to shift the goal posts onto more false claims each time you're debunked, with plentiful ad hominem on top. If you would like to continue this discussion then (1) acknowledge the falsehoods you make instead of just endlessly shifting the goal posts and (2) in order to prevent an endless series of #1, cite things instead of continuing to just 'invent' false facts. And I mean actual data, not some Ted Talk, Reddit, pop media, or wherever you're getting much of the nonsense you're saying like calling Islamic fertility rates 'memetic' or now deciding to claim that fertility rates change faster than they effect populations which is going absurdly far off the deep end. So if you have some meaningful citations for these things, great. Perhaps I can see what you missed - maybe you yourself might even see that. Or maybe indeed I'm the one missing something. But otherwise, I can only assume that you're just randomly stating, as fact, whatever you happen to want to be true.

somenameforme 1y ago

People leaving some faith would obviously be the inverse of those who stay with it. So for Protestantism, it'd be 16%, or 11% for highly religious households. In deciding to look up the numbers for Islam, it's somewhat unsurprisingly only 1%. [1] --- "Based on survey data collected in 117 countries and territories from 2008 to 2024, we estimate that about 1% of people who are raised Muslim leave the faith. This loss is offset by a comparable influx of people joining Islam." --- Wiki has a nice table on Islam in particular here. [2] They broke 10% of the world population sometime around 1820. They broke 20% 170 years later, around 1990. And they're expected to to break 30% about 60 years after that, by 2050. We're trending towards a majority Muslim world, simply because of fertility, all the while people not having children somehow think people in the future will somehow share their values. [1] - https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/06/10/islam-was-the-worlds-fastest-growing-religion-from-2010-to-2020/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/06/10/islam-was... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_population_growth#Historical_Muslim_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_population_growth#Histo...

shkkmo 1y ago
Not really, if you look at the actual birth rates, it maps to economic success more than religious identity. Yes, we all know that global population growth is mainly happening in Africa and other poor countries. You also cite global retention rates for islam. Those retention rates are memetic and highly dependent on the same set of poorer, non-western countries so you are comparing applyes to oranges. If you look at western countries, the retention rate is pretty similar. You keep stretching statistics to reinforce your world view without trying to actually understand the statistics, which is why I assume you keep repeating garbage like "Any group that maintains a positive fertility rate will multiply indefinitely."
- somenameforme 1y ago
  You are misinformed here. Islamic fertility rates within Europe remain high with an average of about one more child per woman. [1] This is why Muslims are expected to continue rapidly growing as an ever larger percentage of all Europeans, even in the scenario of 0 immigration. And this will continue indefinitely unless fertility rates markedly change. The same follows in places like the US, even just amongst Christians. [2] See the first figure (about 2/5ths of the way down the study) for an extremely informative graph. Intended and actual fertility rates for those who consider religion important remains healthy - at around 2.5 children. For those who it is not important or have no religion, it's around 1.5 children. It's easy to just handwave the fertility rate of developed economies while failing to consider the issue that fertility isn't just a random distribution within these countries. It's extremely biased, and religiosity is one of the most predictive factors. [1] - https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2017/11/29/europes-growing-muslim-population/ https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2017/11/29/europes-grow... [2] - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2723861/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2723861/
  - shkkmo 1y ago
    > unless fertility rates markedly change. Which seems highly likely. Fertility rates change far faster than they influence population demographics. > It's extremely biased, and religiosity is one of the most predictive factors. If you ignore income, education, economic opportunity and how many generations ago the family immigrated and all the other important factors. You keep trying to paint a simplistic picture of a complex dynamic.
    - somenameforme 1y ago
      You have, and continue to, make endlessly false claims, only to shift the goal posts onto more false claims each time you're debunked, with plentiful ad hominem on top. If you would like to continue this discussion then (1) acknowledge the falsehoods you make instead of just endlessly shifting the goal posts and (2) in order to prevent an endless series of #1, cite things instead of continuing to just 'invent' false facts. And I mean actual data, not some Ted Talk, Reddit, pop media, or wherever you're getting much of the nonsense you're saying like calling Islamic fertility rates 'memetic' or now deciding to claim that fertility rates change faster than they effect populations which is going absurdly far off the deep end. So if you have some meaningful citations for these things, great. Perhaps I can see what you missed - maybe you yourself might even see that. Or maybe indeed I'm the one missing something. But otherwise, I can only assume that you're just randomly stating, as fact, whatever you happen to want to be true.