Argumentum ad populum
Almost half of the population of England and Wales identifies itself as having no religion, outweighing the number of people who say they are Christian, research found.
In 2014, 48.5% of those asked referred to themselves as having no religion, compared to the 25% that fell into the "none" category in the 2011 census.
Those who defined themselves as Christian - Anglicans, Catholics and other denominations - made up 43.8% of the population, the Guardian reports.
The proportion of the population describing themselves as Anglican plunged from 44.5% in 1983 to 19% in 2014. Catholics made up 8.3%, other Christians 15.7% and non-Christian religions 7.7%.
http://www.itv.com/news/2016-05-24/no-religion-outweighs-christian-in-uk-population/
Moderator: quote amended in line with change to this OP
Almost half of the population of England and Wales identifies itself as having no religion, outweighing the number of people who say they are Christian, research found.
In 2014, 48.5% of those asked referred to themselves as having no religion, compared to the 25% that fell into the "none" category in the 2011 census.
I posted this link in another thread recently but it is relevant here too. This recent study shows that more than half of people in Scotland (52%) now say they have no religion compared with 40% in 1999.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-35953639
Yeah but most of them have the religious belief of the thirst after righteousness
I always said that thhe Scots knew how to do religion properly!
Argumentum ad populum
Why?
Why?It isn't, of course; as Owly has said, it's just a term he's heard used but doesn't quite understand what it means.
Why?Largely because other posters have used hat argument to dismiss other claims here (both religious and otherwise) that they don't like the sound of.
Largely because other posters have used hat argument to dismiss other claims here (both religious and otherwise) that they don't like the sound of.
The problem with the premise of the opening post is that we know that British statistics on religious belief only really started in the inter-war years, perhaps even (seriously) post-1945, and we have no real knowledge of the base figures prior to that. Yes, many, perhaps even most, attended church/chapel, but then even the Churches' own figures are based on occasional attendance (the CoE counts attendance as Christmas/Easter and a couple of other times in the year). Our Baptist church has a regular attendance of around 400 of a Sunday (split between the morning and evening), but no-one believes that all those 400 attendees are believers. I alone can name a dozen who have come to 'investigate' what Christianity is all about, and the pastor can, and has previously counted 100 and more such folk on a Sunday (and only some of these are the 'undecided' children of Christian parents). Furthermore, even those who have called it a day and rejected Christianity continue to live within a society where the culture is heavily influenced by Christian thinking - in law, for instance. Ironically, some of the newer laws relating to gender equality are probably closer to Jesus' teaching on the matter than British law has been for centuries.
Largely because other posters have used hat argument to dismiss other claims here (both religious and otherwise) that they don't like the sound of.
Largely because other posters have used hat argument to dismiss other claims here (both religious and otherwise) that they don't like the sound of.
The problem with the premise of the opening post is that we know that British statistics on religious belief only really started in the inter-war years, perhaps even (seriously) post-1945, and we have no real knowledge of the base figures prior to that.
Our Baptist church has a regular attendance of around 400 of a Sunday (split between the morning and evening), but no-one believes that all those 400 attendees are believers. I alone can name a dozen who have come to 'investigate' what Christianity is all about, and the pastor can, and has previously counted 100 and more such folk on a Sunday (and only some of these are the 'undecided' children of Christian parents).
Furthermore, even those who have called it a day and rejected Christianity continue to live within a society where the culture is heavily influenced by Christian thinking - in law, for instance.
Ironically, some of the newer laws relating to gender equality are probably closer to Jesus' teaching on the matter than British law has been for centuries.
Largely because other posters have used hat argument to dismiss other claims here (both religious and otherwise) that they don't like the sound of.
but why is it an argumentum ad populum?Because of its context and providence.The poster is using it in a campaign to demonstrate the wrongness of Christianity and the improved mental capabilities of those who reject it. Unless I'm much mistaken.
Because of its context and providence.
The poster is using it in a campaign to demonstrate the wrongness of Christianity and the improved mental capabilities of those who reject it.
Unless I'm much mistaken.
Because of its context and providence.The poster is using it in a campaign to demonstrate the wrongness of Christianity and the improved mental capabilities of those who reject it. Unless I'm much mistaken.You're very much mistaken, but eh, what's new.
Almost half of the population of England and Wales identifies itself as having no religion, outweighing the number of people who say they are Christian, research found.
In 2014, 48.5% of those asked referred to themselves as having no religion, compared to the 25% that fell into the "none" category in the 2011 census.
Those who defined themselves as Christian - Anglicans, Catholics and other denominations - made up 43.8% of the population, the Guardian reports.
The proportion of the population describing themselves as Anglican plunged from 44.5% in 1983 to 19% in 2014. Catholics made up 8.3%, other Christians 15.7% and non-Christian religions 7.7%.
http://www.itv.com/news/2016-05-24/no-religion-outweighs-christian-in-uk-population/
So the Anglican church is declining in numbers? So what?The C of E is still (inexplicably) the established state church, so this colossal (and remarkably rapid) slump in religious allegiance is newsworthy.
As it's the established church with s presence in the HoL that is important, Humph. And Catholicism has the numbers that it does thanks to people moving into the country, particularly from Poland and elsewhere in Eastern Europe. How long that stats the case remains to be seen.
Eastern Europe tends to be Orthodox, the RCC influx is more from Latin America
Dear Owlswing,
Yes it is very interesting, for me it ask the question, why?
Complacency within the Church.
Has something replaced religion.
The Church is no longer at the heart of a community.
The various atheist organisations are now making their presence felt.
The Church is outdated.
Pagan religions are on the rise.
Bad press ( deservedly ) over the past decade.
Sunday's are no longer sacred, as in families can find so much more to do on a Sunday morning.
A combination of all the above.
Gonnagle.
We don't have mass migration from Latin America. The media have reported that Poles in particular have boosted RCC numbers.
Another option of course is that people recognize that religions have not met their burden of proof, so can be discounted as probably not true.
People are more educated these days, and fantastic claims tend to be questioned more, and when they are, they are found wanting.
People are more educated these days,more educated, less educated, differently educated, can't be bothered educated.
Dear Berational,
Er!! stick it on the list, but, more educated, less educated, differently educated, can't be bothered educated.
Gonnagle.
I'm not entirely sure I'd put it down to better education. I think it's a cultural shift that's been followed by a change in belief. Christianity no longer forms our cultural glue, and most people have discovered that they really have no need of it at all.
I agree about the respect for authority - not necessarily over fantastic claims (the interest in mediumship, ghosts and the paranormal hasn't diminished, and New Age spirituality is thriving), but the right of the church to dictate what is acceptable, moral or right and what isn't. We have very different ideas based on new understanding now on what is good for families, children, relationships, society and individual wellbeing.Yes indeed - spot the members of this forum for example who aver on absolutely no grounds whatever that homosexuality is 'bad for society' in some vague, wavy-handy way that they never quite scruple to pin down.
Er, yes.
It wasn't that long ago that abused women were returned to their husbands because the church taught that divorce was bad for society.
It's recognised that reaching out to those in the poorest and most vulnerable sections of society is also a good way to evangelise. See Christians Against Poverty with their free holidays for those who 'wish to learn more about Jesus.'Could you provide us with a reference to this 'offer', Rhi.
It isn't, of course; as Owly has said, it's just a term he's heard used but doesn't quite understand what it means.I think he's gleaned the word from you - and the lack of understanding from you, as well, Shakes.
I think he's gleaned the word from youIt's a phrase, not a word. I understand what it means; he clearly doesn't. Try Stephen Taylor's challenge: point out exactly and precisely where in the OP any argument (not even one based on raw numbers ... any argument at all) is made by Owlswing.
and the lack of understanding from you, as well, Shakes.Ah, ever the tu quoque with you when devoid of any actual argument ... it saves on the tricky things like thinking, I guess.
I think he's gleaned the word from you - and the lack of understanding from you, as well, Shakes.
Maybe you could point out where in the OP the argumentum ad populum occurs. As far as I can see it isn't an argument, it's simply the reporting of some data.
Could you provide us with a reference to this 'offer', Rhi.
Maybe you could point out where in the OP the argumentum ad populum occurs. As far as I can see it isn't an argument, it's simply the reporting of some data.Quite. I too await a reply with interest.
These figures come from the 2011 census - try another squirm-out as this one doesn't work!Actually, Owl, I think you'll find - from your own OP - that they date from 2014.
I think he's gleaned the word from you - and the lack of understanding from you, as well, Shakes.
It is probably true that quite a number people would describe themselves as Christians, possibly because they were christened as babies, but only attend church for weddings, christenings and funerals.Yes - tends to be older people who do that, some members of my family included, unfortunately. An opinion poll carried out after the last census yielded abundant evidence of the phenomenon.
Oh, FFS! I really don't know how you've got the gall to post this kind of comment, when it's perfectly obvious to anybody who can be arsed to look up the term "argumentum ad populum" and the basic intelligence to comprehend the definition, that the misunderstanding is all yours and Vlad's. I'd be cringing with embarrassment, if I were you.Remember who you're dealing with ...
The church here used to support the charity. The families it supported were offered free holidays at Bible camps set up at various holiday centres. This was featured in their newsletter that was distributed to supporters and families gave testimonies as to their experiences.And can you provide evidence to the effect that the holidays were only offered to those who 'wish(ed) to learn more about Jesus.' After all the blog you refer to, only says that "As well as all these fun activities we gave clients an opportunity to get to know more about Jesus; these sessions were totally optional, but most clients attended." Clearly this element of the holiday was not the main aim of the provision, but - as CAP is unashamedly a Christian organisation - the clients would have been aware of the offer (in fact, most are aware of the group's underlying philosophy even before they attend their first session).
And can you provide evidence to the effect that the holidays were only offered to those who 'wish(ed) to learn more about Jesus.'Where is the evidence otherwise? ;)
Thanks for the link Rhiannon. I thought the holiday in or near Bath looked quite good if you are into that sort of thing. I imagine the children enjoyed it. Me being a devious soul when it comes to things like this, I thought about how easy it would be to take advantage of the holiday without getting too involved with the evangelism and I think it would be easy, in a crowd of people, to absent oneself from some of the sessions. Others would find it quite interesting without committing themselves to anything.One doesn't even have to be a devious soul, Brownie. Many of those who take advantage of the holidays have little or no interest in the Gospel and choose not to attend the optional sessions (at least that is what CAP themselves report
I presume those who signed up for this holiday (probably a week), knew in advance what was involved.
What happens if the people aren't interested, do they lose the friendship they thought they had with the Christian people? I know that happens with Alpha courses.It can happen whatever the context - it isn't particularly related to Alpha or Christian events; it happens acroos the board. My church has held 30 or 40 Alpha courses over the last 20+ years; many of those who attended them, but chose not to become believers remain friends of those who invited them in the first place (often because they had other reasons for their friendship in the first place).
It can happen whatever the context - it isn't particularly related to Alpha or Christian events; it happens acroos the board."Don't look over here; let's have a look over there instead ..."
My church has held 30 or 40 Alpha courses over the last 20+ years; many of those who attended them, but chose not to become believers ...So you regard belief as voluntaristic then, i.e. something which can be freely chosen?
Dear Hope,
Sometimes I wonder? I have now read the link three times, the author of the report, his credentials seem to be in order, also the fact that his report will be raised in the House of Commons, why argue figures, the Church has a big problem in putting bums on seats, why?
Seems to me that instead of arguing figures you should be asking, can we fix this problem, how can we fix this problem, maybe I should add that to the list, Christians are burying their head in the sand, what problem, I see no problem >:(
Gonnagle.
...British people have potentially - perhaps unwittingly - been perjuring themselves when completing such forms (iirc, it is illegal to give false information at least when responding to the census though its not illegal not to complete it).
Hope,You should see some of his others, they'll blow your mind.
That's a lot to get wrong in just one sentence.
Almost half of the population of England and Wales identifies itself as having no religion, outweighing the number of people who say they are Christian, research found.Interestingly, less than half the population identifies as having no religion. It would be interesting to see how many people 'religiously' do things each week that they feel that they can't 'not do'.
Hope,Thanks for that clarification/confirmation, bhs.
That's a lot to get wrong in just one sentence.
First, it's not "perjury" to give false information on a census. It's actually a specific offence under the Census Act 1920.
Second, it is illegal not to complete it. What's not illegal though is not to complete the section on religion specifically, for which there's an exemption from the rule.There was a campaign that encouraged people not to complete the 2011 Census on the grounds of who would be doing the processing - 2 US military organisations, Lockheed-Martin being one. In 2001 38 people were reported to have been prosecuted for refusing to complete a questionnaire, no figures have yet appeared for the 2011, but I suspect that there could have been more than that both times.
Third, you could not be accused of giving false information without there being intent - if a question is ambiguously worded then people may well have answered truthfully but not in the way the person setting the question intended. That's not an offence.That's partly why I included the term 'potentially'.
You should see some of his others, they'll blow your mind.I'm being taught well, Shakes.
Dear Rhiannon,
Of course you don't, you are not a Christian, but ask yourself a question, the demise of the Church means the demise of all those foot soldiers who day in day out deal with our poor, elderly, alcoholics, drug takers, down and out, raped, disabled etc etc etc the ones the system can't handle or can't afford to handle, what does that mean to you the ordinary tax payer?
Gonnagle.
I'm being taught well, Shakes.If, as seems to be the case per #9, you agree with Vlad that the OP contains an argumentum ad populum even though it doesn't, that's certainly a novel definition of 'taught well.'
Interestingly, less than half the population identifies as having no religion. It would be interesting to see how many people 'religiously' do things each week that they feel that they can't 'not do'.
Thanks for that clarification/confirmation, bhs.
There was a campaign that encouraged people not to complete the 2011 Census on the grounds of who would be doing the processing - 2 US military organisations, Lockheed-Martin being one. In 2001 38 people were reported to have been prosecuted for refusing to complete a questionnaire, no figures have yet appeared for the 2011, but I suspect that there could have been moe than that both times.
That's partly why I included the term 'potentially'.
Hope,No, it wasn't, bhs. I specifically chose the words I did, as the post confirmed some of what I'd previously said, and clarified some other things I'd said (such as the fact that I said 'if I remember correctly').
The word you were looking for there was "correction".
The poster is using it in a campaign to demonstrate the wrongness of Christianity and the improved mental capabilities of those who reject it. Unless I'm much mistaken.
Maybe you could point out where in the OP the argumentum ad populum occurs. As far as I can see it isn't an argument, it's simply the reporting of some data.Yeh,you wish, posting this is the kind of sly innuendo beloved of hard arsed antitheists around here. I've yet to check if Owlswing thought he was merely reporting or had some kind of angle related to him being an antichristian.
No, it wasn't, bhs.
I specifically chose the words I did, as the post confirmed some of what I'd previously said, and clarified some other things I'd said...
...(such as the fact that I said 'if I remember correctly')
You are much mistaken. The poster The poster is merely waving his smugness at you because you are losing (in the UK).I've always thought Christians were in a minority and that nominals made up the numbers.
Yeh,you wish, posting this is the kind of sly innuendo beloved of hard arsed antitheists around here. I've yet to check if Owlswing thought he was merely reporting or had some kind of angle related to him being an antichristian.Since you stated - quite wrongly - that the OP contained an argumentum ad populum surely you must be able to point out where you think it is and where this so-called "innuendo" resides?
Since you stated - quite wrongly - that the OP contained an argumentum ad populum surely you must be able to point out where you think it is and where this so-called "innuendo" resides?Did I say that it contained an AAP? I thought I just put AAP.
Admitting to being religious is obviously no longer an advantage and probably socially and professionallydangerous in parts of secular Britain.
Since you stated - quite wrongly - that the OP contained an argumentum ad populum surely you must be able to point out where you think it is and where this so-called "innuendo" resides?Come of it Shaker its context and intent was to provide atheist wankfodder.
Did I say that it contained an AAP? I thought I just put AAP.Yes - appended to Owlswing's OP.
Come of it Shaker its context and intent was to provide atheist wankfodder.And how do you claim to know that then, given that you've only just written: "I've yet to check if Owlswing thought he was merely reporting or had some kind of angle related to him being an antichristian"?
I've always thought Christians were in a minority and that nominals made up the numbers.
Admitting to being religious is obviously no longer an advantage and probably socially and professionallydangerous in parts of secular Britain.
I understand things change when getting into a good church school is important.
And how do you claim to know that then, given that you've only just written: "I've yet to check if Owlswing thought he was merely reporting or had some kind of angle related to him being an antichristian"?I noticed the author of the OP has not returned to answer me or at anytime back up your incredible idea that he is merely reporting.
I noticed the author of the OP has not returned to answer me or at anytime back up your incredible idea that he is merely reporting.What's incredible about it given that the OP was a verbatim cut-and-paste of a news article, posted as-is without any comment from Owlswing?
What's incredible about it given that the OP was a verbatim cut-and-paste of a news article, posted as-is without any comment from Owlswing?You're an arsehole!
Are you claiming psychic powers now Vlad?
Yeh,you wish, posting this is the kind of sly innuendo beloved of hard arsed antitheists around here. I've yet to check if Owlswing thought he was merely reporting or had some kind of angle related to him being an antichristian.
Are you claiming psychic powers now Vlad?
You're an arsehole!Saved for future reference ;)
That's cut and paste from Brigit Jones.
What's incredible about it given that the OP was a verbatim cut-and-paste of a news article, posted as-is without any comment from Owlswing?
Are you claiming psychic powers now Vlad?
That's right - I remember Modding it as being too much C&P - so Vlad owes Owl an apology.I certainly don't owe you one.
Shakes,
To be fair, he's been claiming that for some time now I think. After all, he asserts that he's had a personal visit from a universe-creating "God" so, unless "He" just strolled up to Trollboy's front door one day, how else but "psychically" could this remarkable event have occurred?
Did I say that it contained an AAP? I thought I just put AAP.
Shakes,Indeed.......and how can they be disproved?
To be fair, he's been claiming that for some time now I think. After all, he asserts that he's had a personal visit from a universe-creating "God" so, unless "He" just strolled up to Trollboy's front door one day, how else but "psychically" could this remarkable event have occurred?
Argument from personal incredulity.You missed out the partridge in a pear tree.
God of the gaps.
Straw man.
Negative proof fallacy.
Tu quoque.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Ad hominem.
False dichotomy.
Texas sharpshooter fallacy.
Indeed.......and how can they be disproved?
You missed out the partridge in a pear tree.Says Tuquoque McQuoqueface!
Dear Owlswing,
Yes it is very interesting, for me it ask the question, why?
Complacency within the Church.
Has something replaced religion.
The Church is no longer at the heart of a community.
The various atheist organisations are now making their presence felt.
The Church is outdated.
Pagan religions are on the rise.
Bad press ( deservedly ) over the past decade.
Sunday's are no longer sacred, as in families can find so much more to do on a Sunday morning.
A combination of all the above.
Gonnagle.
Interestingly, less than half the population identifies as having no religion. It would be interesting to see how many people 'religiously' do things each week that they feel that they can't 'not do'.
It is possible that the rise of Islamism has made casual believers (whatever they might be - ed) less inclined to ally themselves with any form of organised faith. Say 'religious' to many Britons and the next word that pops into thier heads is 'extremist', or perhaps 'bigot' or homphobe'. To the growing population of secularists (should that read humanists?), religion has become something to be treated with suspicion. Politicians who are religious find their faith used against them. Iain Duncan Smith's Department of Work and Pensions was known by his critics as the Department of Worship and Prayer, the joke being that his reforms were inspired by a desire to save lives rather than money. ...
What is the difference between praying in the hope of a positive outcome and touching wood? In both cases you might, or might not, get lucky!Not quite sure how your post refers to the quoted post included in it.
This is the topic of the leading article in the 28th May 2016 edition of the Spectator.
One reason put forward for the decline is:
You may well be right, Hope. I couldn't in all conscience align myself with bigots and homophobes.
Blue, I don't know how Hope or anyone can bring 'evidence' to the table that trumps the right of the individual to love the person of their choice and have a fulfilling and loving relationship.
I agree about Vlad; I don't get his tribalism.
Blue, I agree about Vlad's mendacity.Examples?
I agree about Vlad's mendacity. But in context here I don't understand the tendency of Christians to stick together even when one or more is acting in a bigoted manner - the exception being Gonners, and also Brownie to some extent.
Rhi,
Yeah, it's a rare thing indeed when Trollboy posts something for him first not to misrepresent entirely the argument he hopes to rebut. As for sticking together, that's a thornier one. One of the responses from muslim figures when asked why they don't criticise more forcefully Islamic terrorism is, "Why should we - is it the job of Christians to criticise the Klu Klux Klan?".
Yeah it'd be nice for the believers here to point out the venomous ignorance of a TW or the petulant loopiness of a Sassy more often, but I'm not sure that it's encumbent on them to do so - unless perhaps they anyway feel like countering the disrepute posters like these bring to their faith.
Quite frankly Bluerhiannonside, there are bigger fish to fry. Minorities and even dangerous ones stick out and are by definition the minority. We do not need lecturing to that blowing people up or executing mass numbers exotically is wrong despite the ''slippery slope/tip of the iceberg/moderate religionists are a cover'' idiocy of the New Atheists.
What often goes by unchallenged are the axioms, excesses and cruelties in the Zeitgeist. There is no one round here capable of moral leadership.
Well here's an example of you making the argument about something nobody has said. Questioning the tendency for Chridtian tribalism has nothing to do with either terrorism or any kind of slippery slope argument.The idea, put forward by idiosyncratic British pagans and people for whom a slight majority of non religionists in Britain is hailed as part of the Global end to religion that Christianity, a global phenomenon encompassing billions of people is tribal, is frankly ludicrous.
The idea, put forward by idiosyncratic British pagans and people for whom a slight majority of non religionists in Britain is hailed as part of the Global end to religion that Christianity, a global phenomenon encompassing billions of people is, frankly ludicrous.... and there's the second example of something that nobody has said.
... and there's the second example of something that nobody has said.Sorry I missed out the word tribal.
So do I just say "hey stupid" or look for better arguments, well saying "hey stupid" is fun but searching for a new or more simpler argument is a better challenge.
Gonnagle.
Not so much 'hey stupid' as 'hey you unkind ***'. Because I don't care what it says in a book, anyone with genuine kindness in their heart would be unable to maintain the homophobia we see from too many Christians.
Dear Floo, Rhiannon and Gordon,
The homosexual question, it makes us all foam at the mouth, we see the stupidity, we point out the stupidity ( I am using the word stupid, you can use any other word you like ) are we any further forward, for me personally homophobic thinking damages Christianity, it is a nasty side that needs to be challenged, eradicated, how do I do that! But then, may be just calling out their stupidity time after time is the only way and it is justified, but I like to think they can be reached, how do I do that.
Gonnagle.
Personally I find it a bit rich being lectured on Gay Issues by antitheists who I feel are merely using these issues as a weapon or a position from which to be self righteous.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/how-uganda-was-seduced-by-anti-gay-conservative-evangelicals-9193593.htmlI am not Ugandan nor anti-gay. Any more than you are (Insert strict atheistic country which limits or seeks to limit religion or country in which Christians are killed or targetted of choice.)
Questioning the tendency for Chridtian tribalism has nothing to do with either terrorism or any kind of slippery slope argument.And what would this 'Chrisdtian ( ;)) tribalism' be all about? Is it the kind of stuff that we see in football supporters, or politicians, or nationalist thinking?
And what would this 'Chrisdtian ( ;)) tribalism' be all about? Is it the kind of stuff that we see in football supporters, or politicians, or nationalist thinking?
And what would this 'Chrisdtian ( ;)) tribalism' be all about? Is it the kind of stuff that we see in football supporters, or politicians, or nationalist thinking?Look over there!
I am of the opinion that some who claim to be anti-gay, are actually gays in denialAnd like everyone else, should have the right to bathe in Africa's longest river.
I post mostly on my phone so I make a lot of typos. I don't have a problem with that so I fail to see why you do.A diversionary tactic designed to avoid grappling with the subject at hand, like his constant ignoratio elenchi/"Look over there, they do it too!" which at the moment is threatening to supplant the negative proof fallacy as his favourite form of addled thinking.
And like everyone else, should have the right to bathe in Africa's longest river.
Ehhhhhhhhh, what are you wittering on about?
Ehhhhhhhhh, what are you wittering on about?You said many anti gay Christians were gays in denial.
You said many anti gay Christians were gays in denial.Christians or not there's quite the body of research to this effect, I gather.
You said many anti gay Christians were gays in denial.
Almost half of the population of England and Wales identifies itself as having no religion, outweighing the number of people who say they are Christian, research found.
In 2014, 48.5% of those asked referred to themselves as having no religion, compared to the 25% that fell into the "none" category in the 2011 census.
Those who defined themselves as Christian - Anglicans, Catholics and other denominations - made up 43.8% of the population, the Guardian reports.
The proportion of the population describing themselves as Anglican plunged from 44.5% in 1983 to 19% in 2014. Catholics made up 8.3%, other Christians 15.7% and non-Christian religions 7.7%.
http://www.itv.com/news/2016-05-24/no-religion-outweighs-christian-in-uk-population/
How many foreigners have joined the population from other non-Christian Countries?As ever Sassy getting it spectacularly wrong.
Not a true figure then... since we had over 300,000 immigrants enter last year alone....
How many foreigners have joined the population from other non-Christian Countries?
Not a true figure then... since we had over 300,000 immigrants enter last year alone....
and how many of them are people of no religion?
My point exactly... how do they know how many have religion and don't. Even those who live here. You can get polls to say what you want simply by where they are set up from.
The guy who did the research analysed data collected through British Social Attitudes surveys over three decades.
Are you saying that this data was flawed in some way?
Was it conducted erroneously by people who wanted them, all thirty years worth, to say what they wanted?
My point exactly... how do they know how many have religion and don't. Even those who live here. You can get polls to say what you want simply by where they are set up from.No you can't - not if they are conducted properly. And anyhow I wouldn't describe these data as 'a poll', this is serious academic research.
The guy who did the research analysed data collected through British Social Attitudes surveys over three decades.
Are you saying that this data was flawed in some way?
Was it conducted erroneously by people who wanted them, all thirty years worth, to say what they wanted?
Last year 53% of people described themselves as having "no religion", in a survey of 2,942 adults by the National Centre for Social Research.
Among those aged between 18 and 25, the proportion was higher at 71%.
Almost two in three 25 to 34 year olds said they were non-religious, while 75% of people aged 75 and over said they were religious.
Saw this on the BBC today so resurrected this thread.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41150792
This survey confirms the downward trend in those self-identifying as religious, especially young adults.
Even if that were the case, yay us. In actual fact it's becoming increasingly true across much of Europe - the non-religious already form a majority in other countries such as the Netherlands, the Czech Republic and Estonia, and many other countries continue to play out the see-saw effect (religion down, non-religion up). In addition, based on recent trends it's now not at all inconceivable that the same will be true of the US in the not too distant future.
This is probably true only in Britain.
Even if that were the case, yay us. In actual fact it's becoming increasingly true across much of Europe - the non-religious already form a majority in other countries such as the Netherlands, the Czech Republic and Estonia, and many other countries continue to play out the see-saw effect (religion down, non-religion up). In addition, based on recent trends it's now not at all inconceivable that the same will be true of the US in the not too distant future.
Argumentum ad populumOwlswing didn't make an argument; s/he only quoted figures.
For info
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_irreligion
Owlswing didn't make an argument; s/he only quoted figures.Vlad doesn't know the difference.
Vlad doesn't know the difference.If you're going to be a fallacy-nerd, at least get it right, eh?
If you're going to be a fallacy-nerd, at least get it right, eh?I don't associate a preference for clarity and accuracy of thought and expression with nerdery. I'd say if you're going to do anything get it right, otherwise why bother?
And:
This is probably true only in Britain.
And:
Australia
Austria
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Ireland
Israel
Netherlands
New Zealand
South Korea
Spain
Sweden
Amongst others - I've picked these as they are countries with freedom of religion, so you cannot argue (as you might with China) that people cannot express religious belief.
If 'no religion' includes people believing in secular spirituality, pantheism, non religious theism and so on...that could be true....and will probably grow.
And it would also be true if those people believed in none of those things, which I suspect will be the case as I'd imagine vanishingly small numbers of people define themselves as pantheist, non religious theist etc.
If 'no religion' includes people believing in secular spirituality, pantheism, non religious theism and so on...that could be true....and will probably grow.
What is non religious theism.... with the exception - thanks or no thanks to the peculiarities of language - of a pantheist.
If you are theist of any kind, then you cannot be an atheist.
... with the exception - thanks or no thanks to the peculiarities of language - of a pantheist.
What is non religious theism.
If you are theist of any kind, then you cannot be an atheist.
To be a theist you have to believe in god or gods. A belief in some vague higher power isn't sufficient - it has to be a belief in god.
People can believe in a God or Supreme Power without necessarily following a religion or any religious version of God. 'No religion' means just that. It does not automatically imply any specific philosophical stand.
What is non religious theism.Wooly-minded, pseudo-intellectual bollocks.
People can believe in a God or Supreme Power without necessarily following a religion or any religious version of God. 'No religion' means just that. It does not automatically imply any specific philosophical stand.
Owlswing didn't make an argument; s/he only quoted figures.
If they believe in a god, then they are theists is the point.No I think non religious lack fervour, worship, spreading the word, exclusivity of truth, superior powers and gift, fundamentalism, hagiology etc. which interestingly are things which New Atheism has in spades.
In other (but related news):The situation is somewhat analogous in England - not that explicitly capital H Humanist weddings are recognised legally, but secular civil ones are and they make up two thirds of all weddings.
Most recent data reveals that there are now more humanist weddings (5,260) conducted in Scotland than Church of Scotland (3,675) and RCC (1,346) weddings combined.
The situation is somewhat analogous in England - not that explicitly capital H Humanist weddings are recognised legally, but secular civil ones are and they make up two thirds of all weddings.That's right but the data I gave for Scotland doesn't include Civil Weddings which are (like in England) the biggest block by far (about 15,000). The advent of Humanist ceremonies in Scotland means that non religious people have more choice than in England and that seems to have further eroded the proportion of weddings that are religious. The massive increase in Humanist weddings sine 2005 hasn't affected numbers of civil weddings, as might have been expected - no the types of wedding that seems to have been hit massively by the advent of Humanist ceremonies are traditional Christian ones.
The situation is somewhat analogous in England - not that explicitly capital H Humanist weddings are recognised legally, but secular civil ones are and they make up two thirds of all weddings.Really? What happened to the oppressive theocratic tyranny of the Bishops?
Really? What happened to the oppressive theocratic tyranny of the Bishops?
Really? What happened to the oppressive theocratic tyranny of the Bishops?Well don't forget that they fought tooth and nail to prevent some people from being able to marry in a civil wedding ceremony, which, last time I looked, was nothing to do with them.
With regard to opposite-sex marriage specifically or rather religious provisions thereof, that came to an end on January 1st 1837 with the introduction of secular civil marriage as per the Marriages Act 1836. The fact that a couple can get married with no religious element or trappings is all down to that.Maybe you could just have said ''there is no oppressive tyranny of the Bishops''
They still try to stick their oar in given half a chance, though, even now. As with marriage equality, for example, which despite their beloved quadruple lock they wanted to prohibit even though it referred only to civil marriages and was thus none of their business.
Maybe you could just have said ''there is no oppressive tyranny of the Bishops''I said what I meant - that if they see a chance to impose their religion on those who don't follow it, they'll likely take it.
They still try to stick their oar in given half a chance, though, even now. As with marriage equality, for example, which despite their beloved quadruple lock they wanted to prohibit even though it referred only to civil marriages and was thus none of their business.
I said what I meant - that if they see a chance to impose their religion on those who don't follow it, they'll likely take it.If it was about a change in the law of course it's their business.
Here's that salient bit again:
If it was about a change in the law of course it's their business.Why should it be?
Why should it be?Because they have a view of what marriage is and are required to express that in debate.
Because they have a view of what marriage is and are required to express that in debate.That view is based on religious beliefs which, we know, are shared by a small minority of the population. Having a view is one thing; why should it - and it's a minority view, you'll recall - be used to deny civil rights to a segment of the population?
I think you are letting your inner totalitarian out a bit.It's my not very inner secularist, actually.
That view is based on religious beliefs which, we know, are shared by a small minority of the population. Having a view is one thing; why should it - and it's a minority view, you'll recall - be used to deny civil rights to a segment of the population?We know it's a minority view and that maybe is why the Lords spiritual were defeated. My point is you cannot argue or knock on the door of arguing that the Lords spiritual represent oppressive tyranny and trumpet the march of secularism humanism.....
The whole idea of automatic religious representation in legislature is farcical.
We know it's a minority view and that maybe is why the Lords spiritual were defeated. My point is you cannot argue or knock on the door of arguing that the Lords spiritual represent oppressive tyranny and trumpet the march of secularism humanism.....Oh yes, of course you are right ... because while there are 26 members of the House of Lords automatically appointed to the Lords by virtue of having a leading role in the Church of England there are 27 members of the House of Lords automatically appointed to the Lords by virtue of having a leading role in the British Humanist Society and National Secular Society.
Oh yes, of course you are right ... because while there are 26 members of the House of Lords automatically appointed to the Lords by virtue of having a leading role in the Church of England there are 27 members of the House of Lords automatically appointed to the Lords by virtue of having a leading role in the British Humanist Society and National Secular Society.Please see my update.
Hmm, wait a minute - nope that's not correct is it. While there are 26 members of the House of Lords automatically appointed to the Lords by virtue of having a leading role in the Church of England there are exactly zero members of the Lords automatically appointed due to their leasing role in any organisation that specifically promotes Secularism or Humanism.
In view of that I would include the chief rabbi, imams, Gurus and Give the ermine to Messrs Dawkins, Copson and Terry, Keith, Sashi and of course Jim and chuck in Rhiannon and Bluehillside for good measure.So you would compound the 'wrong' by making it more wrong, noting that most people aren't members of the CofE, a Jewish religious organisation, a member of an Islamic religious organisation, a member of the BHA, NSS etc.
So you would compound the 'wring' by making it more wrong, noting that most people aren't members of the CofE, a Jewish religious organisation, a member of an Islamic religious organisation, a member of the BHA, NSS etc.The house of Lords is not my preferred model of a second house.
What you do is further compound the error by further distorting membership on the basis that somehow religious and non-religious 'belief'-type organisations should gain special privileges.
It reminds me of a recent panel put together to report on 'Faith in Society' - noting that about 90% of people in society aren't members of a religious organisation and about 99.xxx% aren't members of the NSS. The panel was pretty exclusively composed of senior leaders of organised religions or prominent members of those religions, plus (I think) Copson. So the panel were not representative of about 90% of the population.
What did they conclude - well blow me down - that there should be more prominent role for faith organisation in society - knock me down with a feather. Had the panel been much more representative - perhaps 2 prominent faith leaders, one prominent member of NSS/BHA plus 25 people who aren't actively religious do you think they's have come to the same conclusion?
In view of that I would include the chief rabbi, imams, Gurus and Give the ermine to Messrs Dawkins, Copson and Terry, Keith, Sashi and of course Jim and chuck in Rhiannon and Bluehillside for good measure.Why stop there - why is it only religions and (what you would probably describe as anti religious organisations) - if you are saying that top members of prominent organisations of importance to (some of, perhaps as little as 1%) the public must automatically be appointed to the Lords (something that only happens for the Bishops) then why not:
But if there is one I think it is a good idea not just to represent the interests of material in the form of material privilege, entrepreneurship, capital and labour since people are more than these interest groups.But currently no-one who you might describe as representing 'the interests of material in the form of material privilege, entrepreneurship, capital and labour' are automatically made members of the Lords by virtue of a role in another organisation - not one. The CBI chief doesn't automatically become a Lord, nor does the leaders of Unite the union etc etc.
Just a small thing but adds to the already unjustified position of bishops in the house, don't forget when these bishops retire they're mostly awarded a title and your'd never guess where the title puts them.Why should former clergymen et women be barred from becoming peers?
Talk about rubbing it in.
ippy
Why should former clergymen et women be barred from becoming peers?
Why should former clergymen et women be barred from becoming peers?Who is saying they can't be.
Do they tell the truth?
Who?he's good!
Former clergymen and women?
No, they don't! They've been peddling the unproven 'truth' - which fewer and fewer people these days believe to be the truth (see another thread) for two thousand years.
And that unproven truth may, at some time in the future, be proven to be a lie.
Almost half of the population of England and Wales identifies itself as having no religion, outweighing the number of people who say they are Christian, research found.Is truth decided by a show of hands nowadays?
In 2014, 48.5% of those asked referred to themselves as having no religion, compared to the 25% that fell into the "none" category in the 2011 census.
Those who defined themselves as Christian - Anglicans, Catholics and other denominations - made up 43.8% of the population, the Guardian reports.
The proportion of the population describing themselves as Anglican plunged from 44.5% in 1983 to 19% in 2014. Catholics made up 8.3%, other Christians 15.7% and non-Christian religions 7.7%.
http://www.itv.com/news/2016-05-24/no-religion-outweighs-christian-in-uk-population/
Is truth decided by a show of hands nowadays?Nope and nor has it ever been. An assessment of the truth is now and always has been based on the strength of the evidence presented to support something as being 'true'.
Is truth decided by a show of hands nowadays?It still isn't, just like every other time you imply that it is whenever somebody posts some statistics that you don't like.
Nope and nor has it ever been. An assessment of the truth is now and always has been based on the strength of the evidence presented to support something as being 'true'.Or the parlous state of RE.
However I suspect one of the key reasons why religion is declining in the UK (and indeed globally, and certainly in places that have longstanding freedom of religion and support education) is that people are increasing looking at the woeful lack of evidence in support of religions and are concluding that their claims are not true.
Why stop there - why is it only religions and (what you would probably describe as anti religious organisations) - if you are saying that top members of prominent organisations of importance to (some of, perhaps as little as 1%) the public must automatically be appointed to the Lords (something that only happens for the Bishops) then why not:These people already have access to the HOL for doing what they are doing.
Chief execs of all premier league football clubs
COE of RSPB
COE of National Trust
Top bod in the British Angling society
Top bod in all major unions
Chief Scout
Chief Guide
Top bod in British Wildlife trusts
etc etc
All of these have far more members or active supporters than, for example, the organisation lead by the Chief Rabbi.
These people already have access to the HOL for doing what they are doing.How?
These people already have access to the HOL for doing what they are doing.Not in the way that the CofE does, which involved automatic membership of the HoLs when a person is appointed to a senior position in a different organisation, in other words the top 26 Bishop roles.
As an active anglican myself, I must agree. The C of E should be disestablished, and automatic peerages fro the most senior bishops ended.Should the monarch remain head of the CoE, iyo?
How?For services rendered to whatever.
Not in the way that the CofE does, which involved automatic membership of the HoLs when a person is appointed to a senior position in a different organisation, in other words the top 26 Bishop roles.
By contrast the Chief Scout doesn't automatically become a member of the HofL when appointed to that role.
Nor the CEO of the RSPB
Nor the CEO of the National Trust
etc, etc
The CofE is afforded a massive special privilege with regard to access to the HoLs that no other organisation receives.
As an active anglican myself, I must agree. The C of E should be disestablished, and automatic peerages fro the most senior bishops ended.A welcome voice of reason.
For services rendered to whatever.So, instead of reserved seats, those in the religious sphere could be appointed in the same way, for services rendered...etc?
So, instead of reserved seats, those in the religious sphere could be appointed in the same way, for services rendered...etc?That's one way. So Immanual Jacovits the former Chief Rabbi would have become Lord Jocovits for services to religion rather than to Charity, Dawkins could be made Lord Dawkins for services to humanism/popular science, and so on.
Level playing field and all that?
That's one way. So Immanual Jacovits the former Chief Rabbi would have become Lord Jocovits for services to religion rather than to Charity, Dawkins could be made Lord Dawkins for services to humanism/popular science, and so on.I think you are confusing the way in which people are awarded honours such as an MBE or Knighthood, with the process of appointment of members of the House of Lords.
That's one way. So Immanual Jacovits the former Chief Rabbi would have become Lord Jocovits for services to religion rather than to Charity,That however would assume that his contribution to religion was more worthy than that to charity.
Should the monarch remain head of the CoE, iyo?I'd scrap the monarchy as well, but in the meantime, no.
That's one way. So Immanual Jacovits the former Chief Rabbi would have become Lord Jocovits for services to religion rather than to Charity, Dawkins could be made Lord Dawkins for services to humanism/popular science, and so on.Immanuel Jakobovits.
I'd scrap the monarchy as well, but in the meantime, no.I agree with scrapping the monarchy but don't see how you avoid some element of establishment if the head of state is head of a particular church by heredity.
DOWN WITH THE MONARCHY