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

[Stranger]

I think he's gleaned the word from you - and the lack of understanding from you, as well, Shakes.

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.

For the lazy, here are the the first two definitions from a search:-

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Argumentum ad populum ("argument to the people") is a logical fallacy that occurs when something is considered to be true or good solely because it is popular.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

And for the hard of thinking: reporting on the results of a survey is not claiming that something is true (or false) just because of its (un)popularity.

If someone had claimed that Christianity was false just because it was less popular than atheism, then they would be guilty of an argumentum ad populum fallacy but that is not what the OP says. Hence Vlad's response to it (#1) was a steaming pile of dingo's kidneys...

 

[Brownie]

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.

I presume those who signed up for this holiday (probably a week), knew in advance what was involved.

Still I have an aversion to overly friendly people who have an agenda.  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.

[Shaker]

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.

[Shaker]

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 ...

[Hope]

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).

[Shaker]

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?

[Hope]

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.

I presume those who signed up for this holiday (probably a week), knew in advance what was involved.

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

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).

[Shaker]

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?

[Rhiannon]

And yet CAP don't offer holidays without the optional extras. Why is that? Why not just offer holidays without the evangelising?

[Gonnagle]

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.

[Rhiannon]

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.

I don't see a problem either, Gonners. There really isn't anything to fix.

[Gonnagle]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

...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).

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.

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.

[Shaker]

Hope,

That's a lot to get wrong in just one sentence.

You should see some of his others, they'll blow your mind.

[Hope]

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]

Hope,

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.

Thanks for that clarification/confirmation, bhs.

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'.

[Hope]

You should see some of his others, they'll blow your mind.

I'm being taught well, Shakes.

[Rhiannon]

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've made this point here and in other places, Gonners, and it's a fair one - Alien will vouch for my support for the poor sod in the dog collar with a parish on a shit estate where the buses don't run and the post won't deliver, trying to keep the soup kitchen and the toddler group going, dealing with vandalism at the 'vicarage' and burying old ladies.

But you can't make people believe. And while all mainstream denominations oppose marriage equality and some still oppose divorce, having children outside wedlock etc, I wouldn't want people to start believing. I made the decision long before I lost my faith that the Anglican Church was not a fit place in which to raise my children and I've seen nothing since that makes me regret that.

[Shaker]

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.'

Odd how you refuse to be instructed/corrected when you do commit some logical fallacy or other, which as we all know is very regularly indeed, yet see fallacies which aren't actually there.

Weird.

[Gordon]

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'.

This looks like the equivocation fallacy, since you seem to be using 'religiously' to describe habitual behaviour in general when the main point of this thread is about religious affiliation.

I ride a motorcycle whenever the opportunity presents itself in preference to driving - does that make me religious?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

Thanks for that clarification/confirmation, bhs.

It was neither. The word you were looking for there was "correction".

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.

Fascinating no doubt but irrelevant to the point that it is in fact illegal not to complete the census (contrary to your assertion), but it's not illegal not to complete the section on religion specifically.

That's partly why I included the term 'potentially'.

Which doesn't help you. It was never either actual perjury nor potential perjury. What it was "potentially" though was an offence under the Census Act 1920.

[Hope]

Hope,

The word you were looking for there was "correction".

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').

[jeremyp]

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 are much mistaken. The poster is merely waving his smugness at you because you are losing (in the UK).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

No, it wasn't, bhs.

Yes it was. You made a series of statements of supposed fact that were wrong. Identifying where they were wrong and providing the genuine facts is called a "correction".

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...

That you deliberately made mistakes does not stop them from being mistakes. If anything, it compounds the problem. 

...(such as the fact that I said 'if I remember correctly')

A qualifier you can add to any statement: "If I remember correctly, Hope thinks the Earth is flat and has an unhealthy interest in licking the wrong side of postage stamps" for example just allows me to spout utter nonsense and to hide behind the qualifier when the mistakes are corrected.