Billy Graham has died

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just read this again: so hang on sonny!

The elementary surveys at historical revival introduce an intriguing glimpse into ministry.
Presumably there were those answering the call and those that didn't and there is an intriguing third group those who make a spiritual decision but against Christ. I should imagine in the days and weeks after a Mission Scotland there were those who made a spiritual decision one way or another.

In terms of Billy's success people were won for Christ. I doubt the Holy Spirit specified a quota and so in any case he was always up on the deal.

The atheist gloating at his alleged failure seems to be about gloating at a man dedicated to saving people.

At the end of the day Billy did what he did a long time ago and what he did was no different from what Richard Dawkins does.

[Anchorman]

The elementary surveys at historical revival introduce an intriguing glimpse into ministry.
Presumably there were those answering the call and those that didn't and there is an intriguing third group those who make a spiritual decision but against Christ. I should imagine in the days and weeks after a Mission Scotland there were those who made a spiritual decision one way or another.

In terms of Billy's success people for won for Christ. I doubt the Holy Spirit specified a quota and so in any case he was always up on the deal.

The atheist gloating at his alleged failure seems to be about gloating at a man dedicated to saving people.

At the end of the day Billy did what he did a long time ago and what he did was no different from what Richard Dawkins does.

Yep.
olk went forward for many reasons:
Curiosity;
Scoffing:
Interested in commitment:
Act of re-dedication, and
those who genuinely felt the call.

That's what usually happened - and that's what we expected.
We coined the phrase "Sower Session" to describe it..the bit in the Parable of the Sower where Christ describes the destination of the seed split four ways, only a quarter germinating to fruit.
No-one was naive enough to believe every single person would commit themselves....but a surprising number of people who DID make commitments maintained them.
If only a quarter of those who went forward were truly commiting themselves for the first time, then that was a result we could rejoice in!

[SteveH]

Ad populum is a fallacy which argues that something is true because lots of people believe in it. Gordon wasn't saying that.

Or, surely, false because few people believe in it (argumentum ad unpopulum?). Actually, though, Gordon wasn't saying that, just pointing out that Christianity does not have many followers nowadays, so you're right.

[Nearly Sane]

Or, surely, false because few people believe in it (argumentum ad unpopulum?). Actually, though, Gordon wasn't saying that, just pointing out that Christianity does not have many followers nowadays, so you're right.

Yes, you are correct about the opposite applying as well, My apologies for the  initial brevity but Vlad makes this 'error; so frequently it's very boring. Anytime anyone mentions numbers he will say it is an ad populum despite them not using the numbers to say true or false but making points about popularity or not of something

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, you are correct about the opposite applying as well, My apologies for the  initial brevity but Vlad makes this 'error; so frequently it's very boring. Anytime anyone mentions numbers he will say it is an ad populum despite them not using the numbers to say true or false but making points about popularity or not of something

PPllllaaaaaaaayyyyyyy the Maaaaaaaaaan.
It seems I may have messed up on this occasion.

If you are saying I make this error so many times, how many times and are you making an argumentum  ad populum Ha Ha.

Now about NPF fallacy apparently, that occurs whenever any body says 'you cannot prove that''.........

[bluehillside Retd.]

At the end of the day Billy did what he did a long time ago and what he did was no different from what Richard Dawkins does.

That's very funny.

[Nearly Sane]

PPllllaaaaaaaayyyyyyy the Maaaaaaaaaan.
It seems I may have messed up on this occasion.

If you are saying I make this error so many times, how many times and are you making an argumentum  ad populum Ha Ha.

Now about NPF fallacy apparently, that occurs whenever any body says 'you cannot prove that''.........

No, it isn't playing the man to point out that you are making the error frequently and then you compound that here by making a new error about it. The ad populum only applies if someone is saying something is true or false because of acceptance or lack of acceptance

[bluehillside Retd.]

This is interesting for various reasons, Woody Allen interviewing Billy Graham in 1969:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BEa_DqbEYE

When pushed, BG actually says that the greatest "sin" is idolatry (worshipping the wrong god apparently) - so much for murder etc then.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's very funny.

Why?.........and apparently, since talking about someone's popularity is not Argumentum ad populum.......Dawkins fails to draw anything like the crowds Graham did ending up even as a wee footnote to Pope Benny's visit.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, it isn't playing the man to point out that you are making the error frequently and then you compound that here by making a new error about it. The ad populum only applies if someone is saying something is true or false because of acceptance or lack of acceptance

How frequently?

[Aruntraveller]

Godwin alert - Hitler drew yuuge crowds as does Mr Trump, like the biggest ever. Bigly big. The bigliest, bigly
crowds you ever did see.

[Nearly Sane]

How frequently?

Too

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Godwin alert - Hitler drew yuuge crowds as does Mr Trump, like the biggest ever. Bigly big. The bigliest, bigly
crowds you ever did see.

Apparently Obama picked up bigger crowds than Trump.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Too

LOL

[Maeght]

If you are saying I make this error so many times, how many times and are you making an argumentum  ad populum Ha Ha.

No.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Why?

Assertions & evangelism vs reason and evidence.

.........and apparently, since talking about someone's popularity is not Argumentum ad populum

Of course it isn't. The ad pop requires the linking of popularity with truthfulness (or untruthtfulness).

.......Dawkins fails to draw anything like the crowds Graham did ending up even as a wee footnote to Pope Benny's visit.

BG used popularity (ie, conversions) as a performance indicator; RD doesn't.

Epic fail.

[Anchorman]

Yes, you are correct about the opposite applying as well, My apologies for the  initial brevity but Vlad makes this 'error; so frequently it's very boring. Anytime anyone mentions numbers he will say it is an ad populum despite them not using the numbers to say true or false but making points about popularity or not of something

A wee defence of Vlad in the numbers thing....
How many of those who went forward remained Christian afterward?
We don't know, pure and simple.
Many went to independent evangelical or pentecostal churches, which simply don't return statistics, either to the BGEA or the government, for that matter.
Some would record income if they are a registered charity or pay a pastor: many operate without a full time pastor, and have no charitable status and therefire slip under the radar.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

BG used popularity (ie, conversions) as a performance indicator; RD doesn't.

Are you saying that Dawkins is not out to persuade?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Dawkins support for the Atheist bus was not to increase the numbers of atheists?, His call for atheists to openly tackle religion was not a recruitment attempt for New Atheism? His campaign for census atheism was due to his disinterest in atheist numbers?

[ippy]

Are you saying that Dawkins is not out to persuade?

More to educate.

Regards ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

Anchs,

A wee defence of Vlad in the numbers thing....
How many of those who went forward remained Christian afterward?
We don't know, pure and simple.
Many went to independent evangelical or pentecostal churches, which simply don't return statistics, either to the BGEA or the government, for that matter.
Some would record income if they are a registered charity or pay a pastor: many operate without a full time pastor, and have no charitable status and therefire slip under the radar.

That's not a defence because you haven't understood his mistake. Gordon said that, if BG's measure of success was conversions then he failed. That may or may or be true for the reasons you propose. What Vlad did though was to accuse him of an ad pop ("That and an argumentum ad populum about numbers of Christians") when it was no such thing. To be an ad pop Gordon would also have had to have claimed a relationship between the number of conversions (whatever it actually is) and the truthfulness or otherwise of the narrative.

NS added that this is a mistake Vlad makes consistently despite having it explained to him, just as he consistently makes mistakes about the burden of proof, category error, the meanings of the terms he attempts ("scientism") etc. Whether he does this deliberately for his own amusement or is incapable of grasping the meanings is impossible to tell.   

[Nearly Sane]

A wee defence of Vlad in the numbers thing....
How many of those who went forward remained Christian afterward?
We don't know, pure and simple.
Many went to independent evangelical or pentecostal churches, which simply don't return statistics, either to the BGEA or the government, for that matter.
Some would record income if they are a registered charity or pay a pastor: many operate without a full time pastor, and have no charitable status and therefire slip under the radar.

Not sure how that's a defence of Vlad stating the use of the ad populum when it wasn't used. I think rather you are disagreeing with Gordon's rating of the mission as a failure and since that is based on the figures of people overall becoming less religious in Scotland, not sure where the statements above would address that,

[Maeght]

A wee defence of Vlad in the numbers thing....
How many of those who went forward remained Christian afterward?
We don't know, pure and simple.
Many went to independent evangelical or pentecostal churches, which simply don't return statistics, either to the BGEA or the government, for that matter.
Some would record income if they are a registered charity or pay a pastor: many operate without a full time pastor, and have no charitable status and therefire slip under the radar.

Not a defence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

he consistently makes mistakes about the burden of proof, category error, the meanings of the terms he attempts ("scientism") etc. Whether he does this deliberately for his own amusement or is incapable of grasping the meanings is impossible to tell.

Positive assertions have a burden of proof. category error?
Meanings? look 'em up in Wikipedia

[ProfessorDavey]

I wonder how history will view BG in due course, once the dust has settled.

I suspect it may be as a remarkably charismatic and influential figure, but one whose ministry was ultimately a failure. Specifically because for all his charisma and influence he failed to stop or even reverse the steady and ongoing decline in christian religiosity across the many countries including the USA.

I think also history will view him as having been on the 'wrong' side of the argument in two of the three great civil rights/equality battles of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, namely equality on the basis of race (he was on the right side of the argument), gender (wrong side) and sexuality (wrong side).

Put together history may see him as an important figure, but one who was fundamentally looking backwards rather than forwards.