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

[Rhiannon]

I'm not entirely sure I agree with that in the context of wider paganism, Owlswing. Druidry is still popular, Asatru is becoming wider known and of course many witches are solitaries and not coven members or even Wiccan. I've known half a dozen women who have taken up hedge witchcraft after having children.

When it comes to people of any age rejecting Wicca, I can only tell you from my own experience that I found it too restrictive. But that's just me.

And that's without what I think is a much vaster growth in NA spirituality, some of whose adherents may well identify as Christian.

All that said, I'm not sure any of this dents the numbers identifying as Christian to any great extent.

[floo]

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'.

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!

[Hope]

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:

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. ...

[Hope]

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.

[Rhiannon]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rhi,

You may well be right, Hope. I couldn't in all conscience align myself with bigots and homophobes.

Me neither, though it's worth noting that not wanting to be aligned to something and whether it's true or not are different matters - essentially the anti-theism vs a-theism issue. 

I find Hope's homophobia to be contemptible, but I'd have no choice but to agree with it if he could bring to the table supportive arguments that I couldn't undo. Fortunately the arguments he does attempt (the negative proof fallacy being his favourite) are of such buttock-clenching incompetence that I can readily dismiss them and the conclusions they lead him to (that homosexuality is a "perversion" for example) with minimal effort.

Just as an aside by the way, I will say this for Vlad/Trollboy: however much he relentlessly distorts whatever's said to him, he's never once to my knowledge indulged in the grotesque bigotry of Hope and his ilk here on the homosexuality topic. Sounds like a back-handed compliment I know, but it's worth saying nonetheless. 

 

[Rhiannon]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rhi,

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.

His "evidence" is the bits of a book he chooses to think are authoritative while ignoring the bits from the same supposedly authoritative book that undermine his bigotry. 

I agree about Vlad; I don't get his tribalism.

Or mendacity. Ah well.

[Rhiannon]

Blue, 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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Blue, I agree about Vlad's mendacity.

Examples?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rhi,

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.

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.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Rhiannon]

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.   

Well, no, clearly it isn't. But I'll never get the 'I'm on your side because we're both Christian' rather than 'I'm on your side and we happen to both be Christian - or not.' It's the danger of labels.

[Rhiannon]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

You need to look to yourselves or get another phrase rather than tribalism which smacks of a link with Bronze age tribes and trying to make Christianity sound primitive.

Secular Britain at the present is sodden with tribalism at the moment....or haven't you been watching the news.

[Rhiannon]

Oh Vlad, don't tell me tribalism's another -ism you don't understand? Otherwise you are deliberately distorting my usage of it - and you wouldn't do that, would you?

[Shaker]

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.

Your ability to conjure something of out absolutely nowhere is remarkable Vlad - you must be a wizard in the kitchen.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

... and there's the second example of something that nobody has said.

Sorry I missed out the word tribal.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Blue and Rhiannon,

It is the "how to" or "how do we" confront the mind behind homophobia or fundamental Christianity, I am reminded of the time Dawkins God Delusion came out, ridiculing fundamental Christianity only made them dig their heels in further, how do you attack a stupid argument without saying, "hey stupid".

In the case of homophobia on this forum, how do you argue against that deep seated mind set, I have read all the arguments on here from the homophobic and quite frankly they are stupid, but how do we counter such arguments without saying "hey stupid".

Fundamental Christianity, I know the history behind this, fundies ( see, straight away this is derogatory ) see arguments about evolution as a attack on Christianity, where as I see it as absolutely nothing to do with the message of Our Lord Jesus, but how do you argue with that mind set without saying "hey stupid".

Do we just constantly keep pointing out their stupidity or is there another way, this is what is keeping my two brain cells churning, there is another thread on here started by Shaker regarding antibiotics, but the beauty of this story for me is how it explains evolution, it hits hard at anyone who denies evolution, it can affect you in a very personal way, but is this a killer argument, would a fundie listen to the science behind this story, it certainly helped me in my understanding of evolution.

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.

[Gordon]

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.

Gonners

Perhaps this is one of those times when 'hey stupid' is the most appropriate response.

It certainly seems to me that homophobia relating to fallacious arguments from tradition and authority (which seems to be where the likes of Hope and Spud are mostly coming from) don't merit a response beyond just pointing to the fallaciousness of their position.

So, to be honest, I don't think given the history we've seen here that their argument merits any more than a 'hey stupid' anyway, since the counter arguments around tolerance, respect and the avoidance of discrimination should be known to them and have been mentioned here numerous times: so not only is 'hey stupid' well deserved, theirs is the worst form of stupidity, since it is mired in fallacy-inspired instransigence.

[Rhiannon]

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.

[floo]

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.

Agreed. The Bible is used as an excuse for anti-gay bigotry, when there is no justification for it whatsoever.

[Gonnagle]

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.

[Rhiannon]

It's through their humanity, Gonners. Those that I know who have changed position have done so because they've come to realise that relationships are just relationships however they are composed, and two people loving each other can only make the world a better place.

Not all Christians - not all people - have it in their hearts to accept that though. When you think of Trent and Lennie, two of the nicest posters here, sharing their experiences of being in long-term partnerships and still having those rejected by some Christians here, it's difficult to conclude anything other than those Christians have an apparent preference for hate over love.

[floo]

I am of the opinion that some who claim to be anti-gay, are actually gays in denial, trying to persuade themselves they aren't really gay. If that is the case it is very sad indeed.