Christians outnumbered by people with no religion, report by senior lecturer

[Shaker]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

For info

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_irreligion

[SteveH]

Argumentum ad populum

Owlswing didn't make an argument; s/he only quoted figures.

[Sriram]

For info

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_irreligion

Non religious theism, secular spirituality, pantheism etc. could become more and more popular world wide. 

[Shaker]

Owlswing didn't make an argument; s/he only quoted figures.

Vlad doesn't know the difference.

[SteveH]

Vlad doesn't know the difference.

If you're going to be a fallacy-nerd, at least get it right, eh?

[Shaker]

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?

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Sriram]

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.

[BeRational]

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.

If you are theist of any kind, then you cannot be an atheist.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

And yes you are correct, the numbers self-defining as non-religious will grow due to the demographic/age effect.

[Shaker]

What is non religious theism.

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.

[BeRational]

... with the exception - thanks or no thanks to the peculiarities of language - of a pantheist.

Agreed.

Bit like flammable and inflammable.

Oddity of language

[Sriram]

What is non religious theism.

If you are theist of any kind, then you cannot be an atheist.

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

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.

But you are correct in theory, you might belief in god, but not consider yourself religious, but certainly in the UK I think this is very unlikely. Main reason that more people self define as being religious than self define as believing in god. So I suspect the reverse is more common - i.e. someone who self defines as being religious (probably a cultural or social badge or even an agreement with a broad philosophical approach), but doesn't self define as believing in god.

[SteveH]

What is non religious theism.

Wooly-minded, pseudo-intellectual bollocks.

[BeRational]

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.

If they believe in a god, then they are theists is the point.

[Owlswing]

Owlswing didn't make an argument; s/he only quoted figures.

He.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

In other (but related news):

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.

[Shaker]

In other (but related news):

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[Shaker]

Really? What happened to the oppressive theocratic tyranny of the Bishops?

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.

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.