Does antitheism exist?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The issue is about implicit implication.

Ask "what football team do you support' and it is implicitly implied that the default position is that you support a football team - sure you can answer 'no football team', but to do that you need to counter the implicit implication that you do support a football team - it is a non neutral leading question.

Ask, on the other hand 'Do you support a football team' and their is no implicit bias - supporting a football team and not supporting a football team are equally weighted, so to speak. It is a neutral non leading question.

You can read up on leading questions and their impact on perceived religiosity here:

https://cls.ucl.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/BCS70-data-note-2012-The-art-of-asking-questions-about-religion-A-Sullivan-D-Voas-M-Brown-November-2012.pdf

Well the Humanist UK have said that the OCS has taken on board its thoughts on the matter. Unless non believers have an additional section to complete after the question Do you have a religion. I cannot see how that is fair or valid. Considering future representation in the House of Lords might depend on the census being accurate about life beliefs.

[Sebastian Toe]

....
Unless non believers have an additional section to complete after the question Do you have a religion. .....

What would that section contain in order for parity to exist?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What would that section contain in order for parity to exist?

Atheist or agnostic?
Soft atheist or harassed atheist?
Dawkins or Brian Cox?
Hitchens or Johnathan Miller?
Russell or Ģrayling??

If religious people have an extra section it kind of says, we need more information on people like you.

[Sebastian Toe]

Atheist or agnostic?
Soft atheist or harassed atheist?
Dawkins or Brian Cox?
Hitchens or Johnathan Miller?
Russell or Ģrayling??

If religious people have an extra section it kind of says, we need more information on people like you.

People like me?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

People like me?

²
No you would have a shorter census form than someone who admitted to being of a reĺigion

[ProfessorDavey]

Atheist or agnostic?
Soft atheist or harassed atheist?
Dawkins or Brian Cox?
Hitchens or Johnathan Miller?
Russell or Ģrayling??

Why do you need to pigeon hole people all the time Vlad?

If religious people have an extra section it kind of says, we need more information on people like you.

I think it is very helpful to understand how people think via all sorts of surveys.

However the census is (whether rightly or wrongly) only interested in religion - hence one you have answered that you are not religious the census has no further interest. By contrast the census is interested in which religion individuals belong to.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why do you need to pigeon hole people all the time Vlad?
I think it is very helpful to understand how people think via all sorts of surveys.

However the census is (whether rightly or wrongly) only interested in religion - hence one you have answered that you are not religious the census has no further interest. By contrast the census is interested in which religion individuals belong to.

From the guy who wants two pieces of information from religious people and only one for his own folk that is a bit rich.
Agnosticism and atheism is of interest I would have thought.
Secondly if we are in the business of life beliefs or fairness it is imperative that we have more than just information on religion.

You cannot say you want your interests served by census and then insist it is served by only gleaning information about others. That is totalitarian surveillance but I suppose that is consistent with the tone of your previous sentiments.

[ProfessorDavey]

From the guy who wants two pieces of information from religious people and only one for his own folk that is a bit rich.
Agnosticism and atheism is of interest I would have thought.

When you are asking a question about religious affiliation asking whether someone is atheist or agnostic is as relevant as asking someone whether they support Kent or Leicestershire when asking about support for football clubs.

And of course many people (myself included) would answer 'both' to a question on agnosticism and atheism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

When you are asking a question about religious affiliation asking whether someone is atheist or agnostic is as relevant as asking someone whether they support Kent or Leicestershire when asking about support for football clubs.

And of course many people (myself included) would answer 'both' to a question on agnosticism and atheism.

That would be fine.

However you are basing your argument now on a “rightly or wrongly this is about religion”,
If we are now making rightly or wrongly type arguments rightly or wrongly the question is what religion are you.

Humanist UK are running census campaigns to what they see as their favour . They are also running House of Lords campaigns. In both they do not want to be included in a census of life beliefs. In contradiction they are running a campaign for inclusion in thought for the day.

I’m afraid the dangers of self interest here are overwhelming and the whole campaign definitely smacks of your strategy of deliberate marginalising, shutting up and forgetting.

We can only hope that OCS are immune to being buncoed by Humanist UK.

[Outrider]

Atheist or agnostic?

Those aren't mutually exclusive options, given that they're stances on different issues.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

Those aren't mutually exclusive options, given that they're stances on different issues.

O.

Indeed.

[ProfessorDavey]

If we are now making rightly or wrongly type arguments rightly or wrongly the question is what religion are you.

Actually 'What is your religion'

But yes it is a question about religion and asking whether you are a particular flavour of non-religious is not applicable.

And yes it is a leading question.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Actually 'What is your religion'

But yes it is a question about religion and asking whether you are a particular flavour of non-religious is not applicable.

And yes it is a leading question.

And it is of course a voluntary question meaning those answering do so of their own volition and some intent.

The portrait painted by Humanist UK of people Jockeyed into answering and in a certain way is therefore inaccurate.

[ProfessorDavey]

And it is of course a voluntary question meaning those answering do so of their own volition and some intent.

I suspect most people merely answer it a it is the next question on the form and there are many questions to work your way through.

The portrait painted by Humanist UK of people Jockeyed into answering and in a certain way is therefore inaccurate.

Go take that up with HumanistsUK (and at least get their name right). I am not HumanistsUK, I do not speak for HumanistsUK and I am not a member of HumanistsUK.

However it is clear that the census approach is the one that provides the very highest levels of christianity, not least due to the leading question. There is also the issue that it deliberately assesses broad 'affiliation' however nominal. It does not assess belief or activity (the latter two always reduce the number claiming to be christian dramatically, and indeed other religions somewhat).

If fact there was a proposal that the 2011 census should also include philosophical beliefs (as you've suggested), but it was rejected because it would require the question to be about religious belief or philosophical belief and this was considered to skew the results - a reduction in those indicating a religious affiliation (however nominal), rather than having to indicate a religious belief.

Now I understand from a census perfective why they didn't want to make the change as one of the purposes of the census is to look at changes over time and altering questions can make that difficult. But the point remains that the leading question and the fact that the question is about affiliation however nominal in combination will provide data that gives much greater numbers of christians (in particular) that approaches that use non-leading questions and more nuanced questions.

Now seeing as one of the purposes of the census is to support public service provision, funding and policy lumping together:

A) a census christian who merely ticked that box because they were christened and as an adult neither believes in any of the key tenets of christianity, indeed may not even belief in god and the last thing they'd ever do is attend a religious service (except through invitation for a wedding etc), and for whom religion is an irrelevance but who may abhor the attitudes of many religions towards women, gay people etc.

with

B) a 100% believing and committed evangelical christian whose whole life revolves around a church and its activities and attendance and who seeks out a family and friends who largely do the same.

Chalk and cheese in the extreme. But in the eyes of the census (and the policy implications that flow from it) they are both the same.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I suspect most people merely answer it a it is the next question on the form and there are many questions to work your way through.
Go take that up with HumanistsUK (and at least get their name right). I am not HumanistsUK, I do not speak for HumanistsUK and I am not a member of HumanistsUK.

However it is clear that the census approach is the one that provides the very highest levels of christianity, not least due to the leading question. There is also the issue that it deliberately assesses broad 'affiliation' however nominal. It does not assess belief or activity (the latter two always reduce the number claiming to be christian dramatically, and indeed other religions somewhat).

If fact there was a proposal that the 2011 census should also include philosophical beliefs (as you've suggested), but it was rejected because it would require the question to be about religious belief or philosophical belief and this was considered to skew the results - a reduction in those indicating a religious affiliation (however nominal), rather than having to indicate a religious belief.

Now I understand from a census perfective why they didn't want to make the change as one of the purposes of the census is to look at changes over time and altering questions can make that difficult. But the point remains that the leading question and the fact that the question is about affiliation however nominal in combination will provide data that gives much greater numbers of christians (in particular) that approaches that use non-leading questions and more nuanced questions.

Now seeing as one of the purposes of the census is to support public service provision, funding and policy lumping together:

A) a census christian who merely ticked that box because they were christened and as an adult neither believes in any of the key tenets of christianity, indeed may not even belief in god and the last thing they'd ever do is attend a religious service (except through invitation for a wedding etc), and for whom religion is an irrelevance but who may abhor the attitudes of many religions towards women, gay people etc.

with

B) a 100% believing and committed evangelical christian whose whole life revolves around a church and its activities and attendance and who seeks out a family and friends who largely do the same.

Chalk and cheese in the extreme. But in the eyes of the census (and the policy implications that flow from it) they are both the same.

Given the context of the question it is doubtful whether this is a leading question. Since by being voluntary and that it is flagged as such. The Lead if not the leading question becomes implicit. "Would you like to answer a question on religion?"

Second guessing what people are doing here is not really scientific is it?

Suffice to say in my unbelieving days I would have skipped the question.

[Nearly Sane]

...

Now seeing as one of the purposes of the census is to support public service provision, funding and policy lumping together:

A) a census christian who merely ticked that box because they were christened and as an adult neither believes in any of the key tenets of christianity, indeed may not even belief in god and the last thing they'd ever do is attend a religious service (except through invitation for a wedding etc), and for whom religion is an irrelevance but who may abhor the attitudes of many religions towards women, gay people etc.

with

B) a 100% believing and committed evangelical christian whose whole life revolves around a church and its activities and attendance and who seeks out a family and friends who largely do the same.

Chalk and cheese in the extreme. But in the eyes of the census (and the policy implications that flow from it) they are both the same.

What are the differences in policy implications?

[ProfessorDavey]

What are the differences in policy implications?

Just a few examples:

Decisions about state-funded faith schools

Funding for faith groups

Determining whether special privileges for religious organisations are appropriate, such as:
a) CofE Bishops in the HoLs
b) Different rules on charitable status and needing to become a registered charity between faith-based charities and other charities
c) Complete exemption for buildings used for worship from business rates (they aren't even on the VOA database) while the best other organisations (such as charities) may get is 80% relief, so still paying 20%.

[Nearly Sane]

Just a few examples:

Decisions about state-funded faith schools

Funding for faith groups

Determining whether special privileges for religious organisations are appropriate, such as:
a) CofE Bishops in the HoLs
b) Different rules on charitable status and needing to become a registered charity between faith-based charities and other charities
c) Complete exemption for buildings used for worship from business rates (they aren't even on the VOA database) while the best other organisations (such as charities) may get is 80% relief, so still paying 20%.

Since I'd get rid of all of those, it seems as if it's merely a matter of privileging religious beliefs

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just a few examples:

Decisions about state-funded faith schools

Funding for faith groups

Determining whether special privileges for religious organisations are appropriate, such as:
a) CofE Bishops in the HoLs
b) Different rules on charitable status and needing to become a registered charity between faith-based charities and other charities
c) Complete exemption for buildings used for worship from business rates (they aren't even on the VOA database) while the best other organisations (such as charities) may get is 80% relief, so still paying 20%.

You are assuming practical hostility to faith schools and Lords spiritual. The charging of rates on buildings sounds like it is eminently sortable if not explicable.

Why do you assume pro gay equals anti religion?

[Outrider]

You are assuming practical hostility to faith schools and Lords spiritual. The charging of rates on buildings sounds like it is eminently sortable if not explicable.

Why do you assume pro gay equals anti religion?

Sorry, did you mean 'apart from the demonstrable history of organised religion in the West's vehement opposition to equal rights for homosexuals, why do we assume pro-gay equals anti-religion'?

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

Since I'd get rid of all of those, it seems as if it's merely a matter of privileging religious beliefs

I'd get rid of them too. But in order to do that you'd need to win the argument to change public policy.

And the point is that justification for maintaining the current policy position includes using evidence from the census - which conflates nominal religious affiliation with active involvement and in doing so implicit massively over-inflates active involvement with and importance of specific religious organisations. And of course these special privileges all apply to religious organisations rather than to individual believers.

[ProfessorDavey]

You are assuming practical hostility to faith schools and Lords spiritual.

You are using emotive language again.

But the point remains that the vast majority of the population (typically over 60-70%) oppose state funded faith schools, oppose religious selection in schools and oppose the Lords spiritual.

But that evidence is regularly batted away by either naive or deliberate misrepresentation of the census data to imply that we remain a majority religious country and therefore there must be support from that religious majority for faith schools and automatic places faith leaders in the HoLs.

[ProfessorDavey]

The charging of rates on buildings sounds like it is eminently sortable if not explicable.

Sure - you could change the policy tomorrow - but it would be vigorously opposed by organised faith groups (who clearly have a vested interest in keeping their building free from business rates, unlike all other non domestic property) and who have influence way above their membership as a proportion of the population.

And they will use the census to imply that the majority in the UK are religious (even through perhaps just 10% or so are actually members of a religious organisation (and religious organisations own the building free from rates) and therefore the special importance of religion in the hearts of the UK population (non-sense of course) must be recognised in maintaining the status quo, which is effectively a tax handout to religious organisations, not available to any other organisation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sure - you could change the policy tomorrow - but it would be vigorously opposed by organised faith groups (who clearly have a vested interest in keeping their building free from business rates, unlike all other non domestic property) and who have influence way above their membership as a proportion of the population.

And they will use the census to imply that the majority in the UK are religious (even through perhaps just 10% or so are actually members of a religious organisation (and religious organisations own the building free from rates) and therefore the special importance of religion in the hearts of the UK population (non-sense of course) must be recognised in maintaining the status quo, which is effectively a tax handout to religious organisations, not available to any other organisation.

Tax handouts seem to be available to all sorts of big wheels.

There again you seem to be playing a notional campaign against tax relief against your own cause....the stealthy marginalising, shutting up and forgetting about religion.

[Outrider]

Tax handouts seem to be available to all sorts of big wheels.

There again you seem to be playing a notional campaign against tax relief against your own cause....the stealthy marginalising, shutting up and forgetting about religion.

You keep pulling this 'marginalising' nonsense - treating religion and religious institutions the same as everybody else is not 'marginalising' them, it's removing privileges they have.

O.