Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry

[Nearly Sane]

The UK for the past 60 years or so. But the basic trend applies to pretty well all countries with freedom of religion and are broadly what we would describe as the developed world.

And as Steve pointed out had this been something you could generalize then religion would be over. 

[ProfessorDavey]

And as Steve pointed out had this been something you could generalize then religion would be over.

It is occurring over several generations and there are very similar trends in many countries.

Ultimately the decline in religiosity is expressed as an 's' shaped curve - so the decline is slow to start with and can be expressed as a doubling (exponential growth in the numbers of non religious people over a set time, about a generation). As the most rapid decline phase kicks in (we are in that now) the decline can be expressed as a halving of the proportion of religious people over that similar time (a generation). As it is a halving it never really gets to zero. So if the proportion of active christians in the UK is currently about 6% - in 35 years this will be 3%, in 70 years 1.5% and so on.

David Voas is the leading authority on this, working with the British Social Attitudes datasets amongst other research.

https://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/39293/1_bsa36_religion.pdf

[Spud]

So are you equating being gay with leaving dog poo lying around. Do you realise how offensive that comes across as. Perhaps your conscience tells you that making such offensive comments is morally wrong, but you just can't help yourself.

First can we distinguish being gay - same sex attraction - from acting on that attraction. No I am not equating same sex attraction with leaving dog poo lying around. From a biblical pov I would say that acting on SSA and leaving excrement lying around are both prohibited.

[Aruntraveller]

First can we distinguish being gay - same sex attraction - from acting on that attraction. No I am not equating same sex attraction with leaving dog poo lying around. From a biblical pov I would say that acting on SSA and leaving excrement lying around are both prohibited.

So you are saying that me acting on my attraction to my partner is the same as leaving dog shit lying around.

Thank you so much for your clear sightedness and humanity.

[jeremyp]

And as Steve pointed out had this been something you could generalize then religion would be over.

60 years is only about three generations. If PD's figures are correct, we would expect church attendance to be roughly one eighth what it was in 1960. I'm not saying it's right, but it doesn't seem beyond the bounds of credibility, in the UK.

[Stranger]

First can we distinguish being gay - same sex attraction - from acting on that attraction. No I am not equating same sex attraction with leaving dog poo lying around. From a biblical pov I would say that acting on SSA and leaving excrement lying around are both prohibited.

Which tells us the the "biblical pov" is morally repugnant. 

[Spud]

So you are saying that me acting on my attraction to my partner is the same as leaving dog shit lying around.

And some things that I have done. We are all turds.

[Nearly Sane]

60 years is only about three generations. If PD's figures are correct, we would expect church attendance to be roughly one eighth what it was in 1960. I'm not saying it's right, but ededit doesn't seem beyond the bounds of credibility, in the UK.

And again whoosh. Steve is making a gaualifiedneral point that were specific circs to be applied generally, religion would have died out. The statement needs qualified

[Spud]

Which tells us the the "biblical pov" is morally repugnant.

Suppose all the people you fancy are married. What do you do?

[Nearly Sane]

Suppose all the people you fancy are married. What do you do?

Stop.posting when you are pished.

[Stranger]

And some things that I have done. We are all turds.

Which tells us that your god is unjust. If we all fail the test, it isn't a fair test to subject humans to. Your god should have done a better job in creating us or made a more appropriate test.

[ProfessorDavey]

60 years is only about three generations. If PD's figures are correct, we would expect church attendance to be roughly one eighth what it was in 1960. I'm not saying it's right, but it doesn't seem beyond the bounds of credibility, in the UK.

The half life of a generation is typically assumed to be about 35 years rather than 20 years which is not the average gap between generations in the UK currently.

So rather than use a generation, easier to say half life of 35 years. So since 1960 you'd expect levels to have gone through 1.7 half lives. That fits very well with the actual position.

This works very well for generations who have been UK based throughout - it gets thrown off track a bit with immigration.

[jeremyp]

And again whoosh. Steve is making a gaualifiedneral point that were specific circs to be applied generally, religion would have died out. The statement needs qualified

But Steve would be wrong. The claim he made was that with 3% of non religious children becoming religious religious and 50% of religious children becoming non religious, religion would be over. This is false.

In fact, once religious people were down to around 6% of the population, the ratio of religious to non religious would stabilise.

[Aruntraveller]

And some things that I have done. We are all turds.

No, you are not going to get away with that nonsense.

Why is it morally wrong for me to act on my attraction to my male partner, and yet it is ok for a heterosexual to act on their attraction to their partner.

You don't get to argue these things on the basis of comparing my life to stealing sweets from the coop when you were a kid. It doesn't work like that.

[jeremyp]

We are all turds.

You don't speak for me.

[jeremyp]

Why is it morally wrong for me to act on my attraction to my male partner,

That's an interesting question. Well, actually no, it's clearly not morally wrong for you to act on your attraction to your male partner. Why I mean is the interesting question is why the Abrahamic religions have arbitrarily declared it to be wrong.

You can see that there might have been a logical reason behind some of the arbitrary rules (like e.g. they probably observed people getting very sick after eating shellfish), but not this one.

[ProfessorDavey]

But Steve would be wrong. The claim he made was that with 3% of non religious children becoming religious religious and 50% of religious children becoming non religious, religion would be over. This is false.

In fact, once religious people were down to around 6% of the population, the ratio of religious to non religious would stabilise.

Yup that's right - the 'S' shaped curve.

What is interesting is that the understanding that the decline in religion is almost exclusively due to generational replacement (in other words each generation is less religious than their parents) we can predict that the decline will continue for decades to come (not taking into account immigration).

Why, because as the oldest (and most religious generation) die out, they will be replaced with the least religious one and so on. Even if we started having kids who are just as religious as their parents it would be perhaps 80 years (once all generations have the same religiosity) before the decline would stop.

Even if the trend was reversed (each generation being more religious than their parents) we'd likely continue to see a decline for 40 years, until the youngest matched the religiosity of the oldest generation.

But there is no reason to predict anything other than a continuation of the long term trend - with each generation being less religious than their parents.

And this trend works for all aspects of religiosity - nominal affiliation (the kind of census christian), importance (people who see their religion as important) and activity (people who actively participate). Each aspect is declining with the same half live - certainly for christianity.

[Aruntraveller]

That's an interesting question. Well, actually no, it's clearly not morally wrong for you to act on your attraction to your male partner. Why I mean is the interesting question is why the Abrahamic religions have arbitrarily declared it to be wrong.

You can see that there might have been a logical reason behind some of the arbitrary rules (like e.g. they probably observed people getting very sick after eating shellfish), but not this one.

I read somewhere, a long time ago, so don't ask where, that it was to do with the survival of the species in the long ago past. So homosexual activity was deemed "wrong" because it deprived the population of more breeding capability. Something like that anyway. OF course God, had he wished could have fixed that in any number of ways. Such as not letting stillbirths happen, or not having diseases that kill children. But no, he took the nasty way out and decided to persecute gay people.

That God eh? Mysterious or what?

[Owlswing]

Members of this forum, past and present, who have made a point of trying to convince believers that their version of faith is false have failed miserably and will continue to do so.
Both statements are true, and the reason is that most people settle on their adult world-view in adolescence or early adulthood, and very rarely make a major shift in belief (as opposed to minor modifications) thereafter.

WRONG - They arer indoctinated before they are ten or eleven! It is easier to brainwas children! 

[ProfessorDavey]

WRONG - They arer indoctinated before they are ten or eleven! It is easier to brainwas children!

Thankfully children are more robust than we might imagine.

Religious families 'brainwashing' their children at a tender age with the aim to ensure they remain religious for life. Yet half of those children as they become adults will conclude that, do you know what, all that religious stuff - don't believe a word of it. Pretty poor hit rate for all those hours teaching bible stories, sat in pews, making sure their children go to a school that will continue that brainwashing in the class-room as well as at home.

Compare that with the non religious - simply being non religious with no overt brainwashing and guess what - pretty well 100% of their kids will agree with that non religious position as adults.

I think the mixed family is the most interesting - so have 2 religious parents, 50% likelihood of remaining religious as a adult. Merely the presence of a single non religious parent in the household (typically in those cases the religious parent and their church expect their view to prevail) and that hit rate drops to 25%.

Demonstrates just how unimpressive and unconvincing those religious arguments are in this day and age.

[Outrider]

If those figures were accurate, religion would have died out long ago.

That rather depends on how long those figures have been accurate for - I'd suggest those rates are a relatively recent development.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

That rather depends on how long those figures have been accurate for - I'd suggest those rates are a relatively recent development.

O.

Yes - I've been clear about timeframe. And as we understand the process which is driving that decline (generational replacement) we can be confident the decline will continue for the next 80 years if the current children being born are less religious than their parents (or even as religious).

The only way you stop the decline is if children being born today are as religious as adults as the current 80 year-olds - and that is a barely credible proposition.

The only other complicating factor in a country such as the UK is immigration - but that is really any change in religiosity - merely the moving of a religious (or non religious) person from one place to another.

[SteveH]

The only way you stop the decline is if children being born today are as religious as adults as the current 80 year-olds - and that is a barely credible proposition.

Religious revivals do happen, y'know - often in response to major natural disasters, so the current pandemic could spark one.

[Owlswing]

Thankfully children are more robust than we might imagine.

Religious families 'brainwashing' their children at a tender age with the aim to ensure they remain religious for life. Yet half of those children as they become adults will conclude that, do you know what, all that religious stuff - don't believe a word of it. Pretty poor hit rate for all those hours teaching bible stories, sat in pews, making sure their children go to a school that will continue that brainwashing in the class-room as well as at home.

Compare that with the non religious - simply being non religious with no overt brainwashing and guess what - pretty well 100% of their kids will agree with that non religious position as adults.

I think the mixed family is the most interesting - so have 2 religious parents, 50% likelihood of remaining religious as a adult. Merely the presence of a single non religious parent in the household (typically in those cases the religious parent and their church expect their view to prevail) and that hit rate drops to 25%.

Demonstrates just how unimpressive and unconvincing those religious arguments are in this day and age.

My personal experience would seem to show that, in Catholic, Muslim and JW families, the rate of remaining religious is closer to 75 to 80%.

One Catholic family whose child, at age 11, decided that his parents' adhererece to "a load of old superstitious bollocks" was not for him was dragged, fighting every inch of the way to Sunday Mass and, at the door of the church, became extremely loud in his protests at being dragged there to listen to "that old fart" (pointing to the priest welcoming the congregation) who talked nothing but a load of old cobblers.

The priest withstood the tirade for about five minutes before declaring that the child was clearly a lost cause as Satan had already claimed his soul and that he did not wish to contaminate his congregation with his presence, but would pray for his redemption.

He, the child not the priest, never again attended church of any Christian denomonation and, at sixteen, walked out of the family home and was treated as if he had never existed by the family.

An isololated case, but if it can happen once . . .  ?  And as this happened over thirty years ago I would agree that it is likely to happen more often now.

[Owlswing]

Religious revivals do happen, y'know - often in response to major natural disasters, so the current pandemic could spark one.

Is it not possible that God may be blamed for the "current pandemic"? Seeing as how everything that happens in this world happens by his will?