Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mononoke" data-source="post: 5673963" data-attributes="member: 238323">My point wasn't about Buddhism vs Islam, but that your numbers are insignificant.<a href="http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-landscape-study-full.pdf" target="_blank">http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-landscape-study-full.pdf</a>This was survey done in 2008 by an independent Washington based think tank. In page 10 it says that .6% of Americans are Muslim, while .7% are buddhist. Those are insignificant percentages compared to the 74% Christian anyway. If you look at page 24 it shows that a large number of buddhist are actually adult converts(almost 50%) while the islamic conversion numbers are nothing close to that. Page 26 shows that while islam looses as many practitioners as it converts, the Buddhist numbers are solidly rising.  Clearly there are more Buddhist converts. Also roughly a 3rd of the Muslims is Suuni while a 3rd is Shia. So, out of your 20000 a good 7000 are at war with another 7000.Hopefully that satisfies your citation fetish.Like I told you before, back then running down a mountain in religous furver meant something. These days such tactics will get you mowed down. And why did the Islamic empire loose ground in the 18th and 19th century: technology.What is your point here? Germany became a superpower because of rapid technological innovation. They couldn't sustain it because of American industrial power and utter stupidity. My point about the driving factors in world domination still stand.They why say something like this:Or make this thread for that matter.P.S: Why do you have to use offensively large fonts? I'll tell you right away that it doesn't plug the gaps in your logic.</blockquote>

Verification: Asuwa dahayen wadi kalama keeyada?

Top Bottom