Non religious, Atheist, New Atheist, Humanist, Mammon worshipper, Buddhist

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

For me, getting more people to be cultural christians has no meaning and does not make one saved.

Leaving aside the “saved” idiocy, the “for me” is irrelevant. What you would do with the data (false positives included) is neither here nor there – it’s what policy makers will do with that matters.
 

Surely the point is that it in this context it is the non believers that are trying to drum up numbers for their side…

Er no, it’s just counting. What “non-believers” actually want is for the census to record the facts accurately, and for policy-makers to act on that basis rather than on the false story the current framing of the question produces. 

…and the beef is that their focus on beliefs rather than the cultural and practice aspects isn't shared by the ONS who are less interested in a creating Humanist paradise on Earth.......which has religious overtones anyway.

Gibberish. Which part of “the census should be more accurate rather than less accurate” is it that you object to?

[Stranger]

No they haven't - as far as I'm aware the only objection to the humanist suggestion for the census question is that there isn't enough space on the form.

This is bizarre - I've just looked at my paper form and question 16 (for each person) "What is your religion?" is followed by question 17 "This question is intentionally left blank" - followed by about 4cm of blank space (more than enough for a single tick box for a "Do you have a religious belief?" question). The claim that there isn't enough space is clearly false.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,
Leaving aside the “saved” idiocy, the “for me” is irrelevant. What you would do with the data (false positives included) is neither here nor there – it’s what policy makers will do with that matters.
 
Er no, it’s just counting. What “non-believers” actually want is for the census to record the facts accurately, and for policy-makers to act on that basis rather than on the false story the current framing of the question produces. 
 

Gibberish. Which part of “the census should be more accurate rather than less accurate” is it that you object to?

But what the Humanist and you presumably want reported accurately isn't what the ONS want. In fact it would affect the accuracy for what they are looking for.
 
To believe the Humanists are merely after accuracy is IMV incredibly Naive since it is there aim to find a statistic they believe will change society in a particular way.

That is opposite to a census which is more of a snapshot of how the country is. Not how a group think it should ideally be.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This is bizarre - I've just looked at my paper form and question 16 (for each person) "What is your religion?" is followed by question 17 "This question is intentionally left blank" - followed by about 4cm of blank space (more than enough for a single tick box for a "Do you have a religious belief?" question). The claim that there isn't enough space is clearly false.

This could either mean that humanists were about to get lucky, are going to be lucky or it's someone in the ONS mischieviously rubbing salt into the frustration of Humanists by saying a blank space makes more sense than the question Humanists want.....or something else.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

But what the Humanist and you presumably want reported accurately isn't what the ONS want. In fact it would affect the accuracy for what they are looking for.

What the ONS want is what they’re told to want. The point though is what policy makers would do with the data a false positive biased question produces.   
 

To believe the Humanists are merely after accuracy is IMV incredibly Naive since it is there aim to find a statistic they believe will change society in a particular way.

Whether and how humanists would like to change society is neither here nor there for the purpose of accurate data gathering. Either you think theology-based policy (“…to demand continued religious programming on the BBC and government support for church buildings and faith schools…to set patterns of provision of state-funded pastoral care and make decisions about the school syllabus” etc) should be justified by accurate data or you don’t. 

Why don’t you?

That is opposite to a census which is more of a snapshot of how the country is. Not how a group think it should ideally be.

Why are you doing this to yourself? A “snapshot of how the country is” should be how it actually is, not how certain politicical and clerical policy makers would like it to be by relying a biased questionnaire response for their justification. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

If you have read it then you will have seen this part then:

“When it came to the actual contents of the Christian faith – the “belief” part of religion – the results plummeted. Just 34 per cent said it was because they “believe in the teachings of Christianity”. Only 27 per cent said they “believe that Jesus Christ was a real person who died and came back to life, and was the son of God”. When it came to practice, the numbers fell even further. Most people who ticked Christian either never attended a place of worship or did so less than once a year.

This is why conservative politicians and religious leaders love the census question. They know it is intended to provide data on cultural self-identification. But they can misuse it to make an argument about belief.

“These results confirm that we remain a faithful nation,” Arun Arora, former director of communications for the Archbishop’s Council, said after the 2011 Census. Religious authorities then used the data to demand continued religious programming on the BBC and government support for church buildings and faith schools. It’s deployed to set patterns of provision of state-funded pastoral care and make decisions about the school syllabus.”

Im sorry.....I thought I had made it clear I felt this was part of the Dunt piece that was more humanistUK  conspiracy theory than relevant to the ONS view.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Im sorry.....I thought I had made it clear I felt this was part of the Dunt piece that was more humanistUK  conspiracy theory than relevant to the ONS view.

How you "feel" about that is neither here nor there. He set out the arguments, and gave examples of the same phenomenon after the previous census. Do you have any arguments to falsify that, or is your feeling about it all you have?

Again: data is data, and it should be recorded accurately. The agendas of those who would then make policy arguments relying on that data is a second order issue.   
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

What the ONS want is what they’re told to want. The point though is what policy makers would do with the data a false positive biased question produces.   
 
Whether and how humanists would like to change society is neither here nor there for the purpose of accurate data gathering. Either you think theology-based policy (“…to demand continued religious programming on the BBC and government support for church buildings and faith schools…to set patterns of provision of state-funded pastoral care and make decisions about the school syllabus” etc) should be justified by accurate data or you don’t. 

Why don’t you?

Why are you doing this to yourself? A “snapshot of how the country is” should be how it actually is, not how certain politicical and clerical policy makers would like it to be by relying a biased questionnaire response for their justification.

Accurate data about what? Do you think a low level of religious beliefs demands a legislated policy of ignorance of them? You are surely talking about the clever excision of any affiliation to religion

I think on this matter Humanist UK are hypocritically criticising others for trying to somehow interfere and skew policy making by exercising a fantasy view of Britain as an oppressive theocracy.

I think you'll find also that the goals of Humanism UK are doctrine rather than scientifically and statistically based.

I'm afraid ONS haven't accepted that.

Frankly I find the suggestion that some people who culturally identify they are religiously affiliated are fooled poor hoodwinked suckers who need enlighted by celebs and scientists rather patronising. How about you?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Accurate data about what? Do you think a low level of religious beliefs demands a legislated policy of ignorance of them? You are surely talking about the clever excision of any affiliation to religion

Bizarre. Accurate data about religious beliefs, obviously. If you’re going to frame beliefs-based public policy and rely on what people believe to justify it, then you need know what it is that people do believe.

This shouldn’t be difficult to grasp. 

I think on this matter Humanist UK are hypocritically criticising others for trying to somehow interfere and skew policy making by exercising a fantasy view of Britain as an oppressive theocracy.

Why are you so frightened of accurate rather than inaccurate data being used to frame public policy?

I think you'll find also that the goals of Humanism UK are doctrine rather than scientifically and statistically based.

Again, you can make whatever claims you like about “goals”. None of them are relevant though. If policy makers want to frame policies justified by what people believe then – regardless of what those policy makers’ goals may be – they should do so on the basis of accurate data about what those beliefs are. 

Why would anyone disagree? 

I'm afraid ONS haven't accepted that.

The ONS have accepted what they’ve been told to accept, and your paranoid fantasies about the humanist “goals” have no relevance to that. 

Frankly I find the suggestion that some people who culturally identify they are religiously affiliated are fooled poor hoodwinked suckers who need enlighted by celebs and scientists rather patronising. How about you?

Except of course the data tells you that very different answers can be obtained if the question is put differently. It’s called framing bias, and it has nothing to do with the intelligence of the respondents. There’s a famous case study for example of oncologists being asked whether they’d opt for chemo or for surgery when the former has a 10% mortality rate and the latter a 90% survival rate. They second group were then asked the same question with the outcomes swapped. The two groups both biased heavily toward the 90% survival rate options, even though “10% mortality” and “90% survival” mean the same thing. Why? Because “survival” has positive connotations and “mortality” has negative connotations.         

Would you say those highly trained and qualified oncologists were “poor hoodwinked suckers who need enlighted” (sic)?

Why not?

[Owlswing]

Why are you so frightened of accurate rather than inaccurate data being used to frame public policy?

Because accurate data will show the steady and continuing decline in the number of people who classify themselves as Christian as they have discovered, some via this Forum, I have no doubt, as to just how much of the church's teaching is nonsense from a book full of inaccuracies and other rubbish!

Owlswing

)O(

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Bizarre. Accurate data about religious beliefs, 

But the Census doesn't ask about ''religious beliefs'' but religion and that is based on a premise that religion is threefold Cultural, belief and praxis and of that Belief matters least. So what you are asking is for the ONS to change it's methodology to suit your criteria and to focus on the vaguest and least quantifiable and significant aspect in terms of policy to the exclusion of all else as evidenced by your focus on religious beliefs..............Good luck with that one old chap.

Since this means you are effectively debunked I see no profit in further rebutting the rebuttals.

Good Day.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

But the Census doesn't ask about ''religious beliefs'' but religion and that is based on a premise that religion is threefold Cultural, belief and praxis and of that Belief matters least.

Groan. Yes I know it doesn’t – that’s the point FFS! If you want to frame belief-based public policies and rely on what people believe to justify them, then you should know what people believe.

Even for you this shouldn’t he hard to grasp should it?

So what you are asking is for the ONS to change it's methodology to suit your criteria and to focus on the vaguest and least quantifiable and significant aspect in terms of policy to the exclusion of all else as evidenced by your focus on religious beliefs..............Good luck with that one old chap.

No, I’m asking them to change their methodology because their current one is biased towards false positives that (if the previous census is anything to go by) will then be used to justify policy-making that isn’t in fact justified at all. 

Again, even for you this shouldn’t he hard to grasp should it?

Since this means you are effectively debunked…

Ignoring or misrepresenting the arguments that undo you isn’t debunking them. You of all people should know this by now.

I see no profit in further rebutting the rebuttals.

That “further” is a lie – not only have you not rebutted anything, nor have you bothered even trying to. 

Good Day.

As ever, you just scuttle away when you've run out of road. Oh well - 'twas ever thus.

So, as you’re still defending the indefensible I’ll ask you again on the same basis: have you stopped beating your wife yet? A simple Y/N will do. (Sorry I didn't ask you first whether you've ever been a wife beater - I didn't have space on my form.)

[Gordon]

From the Guardian, which has a screenshot of the on-line page. We, in Scotland, have our census next year.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/20/less-that-half-of-britons-expected-to-tick-christian-in-uk-census

[Walt Zingmatilder]

From the Guardian, which has a screenshot of the on-line page. We, in Scotland, have our census next year.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/20/less-that-half-of-britons-expected-to-tick-christian-in-uk-census

Is it me or is it getting a bit argumentum ad populum in here?

[Gordon]

Is it me or is it getting a bit argumentum ad populum in here?

It's probably you: it usually is.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

s it me or is it getting a bit argumentum ad populum in here?

It's you.

[jeremyp]

This is bizarre - I've just looked at my paper form and question 16 (for each person) "What is your religion?" is followed by question 17 "This question is intentionally left blank" - followed by about 4cm of blank space (more than enough for a single tick box for a "Do you have a religious belief?" question). The claim that there isn't enough space is clearly false.

That would be quite error prone. Suppose somebody ticks "no" for "do you have a religion?" and then ticks CofE in the list. It would render that data point useless.

[Udayana]

This is bizarre - I've just looked at my paper form and question 16 (for each person) "What is your religion?" is followed by question 17 "This question is intentionally left blank" - followed by about 4cm of blank space (more than enough for a single tick box for a "Do you have a religious belief?" question). The claim that there isn't enough space is clearly false.

Might be because the NI form has another question there (apparently on religious upbringing)?

[Stranger]

That would be quite error prone. Suppose somebody ticks "no" for "do you have a religion?" and then ticks CofE in the list. It would render that data point useless.

The paper census form (it's obviously not a problem for the online version) is full of questions like that with instructions to "Go to question x" next to one of the options because the next question(s) are irrelevant if that is your answer. For example, you can tick that you own your property outright and then answer the "Who is your landlord?" question.

[bluehillside Retd.]

jeremy,

That would be quite error prone. Suppose somebody ticks "no" for "do you have a religion?" and then ticks CofE in the list. It would render that data point useless.

Couldn't the solution be something like:

1. Do you identify as having a religious faith (Y/N)? If N, ignore Q2 and go to Q3

2. With which religious faith do you most identify:

- Christian

- Muslim etc

- Other (please indicate which other faith here)

The problem otherwise is that it's already error prone because it's biased toward false positives for religious belief.
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

jeremy,

Couldn't the solution be something like:

1. Do you identify as having a religious faith (Y/N)? If N, ignore Q2 and go to Q3

2. With which religious faith do you most identify:

- Christian

- Muslim etc

- Other (please indicate which other faith here)

The problem otherwise is that it's already error prone because it's biased toward false positives for religious belief.

Would question 1 be voluntary?
Also to meet the goal of yielding policy.e. g.satisfying humanist demands for active dismantling of privileges question 3 would need to establish whether you were a humanist.
"No information" would not distinguish between a laissez faire attitude or a hard arsed disestablishment position.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Would question 1 be voluntary?

Census questions aren’t voluntary unless the form says so.

Also to meet the goal of yielding policy.e. g.satisfying humanist demands for active dismantling of privileges question 3 would need to establish whether you were a humanist.

Don’t be silly. The only “humanist demand” here is that the census’s religious affiliation question be framed to minimise the chances of false positives. Why would you not share the goal of minimising false positives, regardless of the subject matter?   

"No information" would not distinguish between a laissez faire attitude or a hard arsed disestablishment position.

Gibberish.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Census questions aren’t voluntary unless the form says so.

Don’t be silly. The only “humanist demand” here is that the census’s religious affiliation question be framed to minimise the chances of false positives. Why would you not share the goal of minimising false positives, regardless of the subject matter?   

Gibberish.

All replies here are non sequitur.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

All replies here are non sequitur.

None of them are, presumably because you don't know what "non sequitur" means.

Your basic mistake here is to conflate the goal (minimising of false positives) with the agenda (real or imagined) of the people arguing for it. Arguing that there should be as few false positives as reasonably possible stands alone as an objective - whether the people arguing for that are humanists, Zoroastrians, flat-earthers or the local knitting circle has no relevance at all to that.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

None of them are, presumably because you don't know what "non sequitur" means.

Your basic mistake here is to conflate the goal (minimising of false positives) with the agenda (real or imagined) of the people arguing for it. Arguing that there should be as few false positives as reasonably possible stands alone as an objective - whether the people arguing for that are humanists, Zoroastrians, flat-earthers or the local knitting circle has no relevance at all to that.   

Apart from the fact that the ONS would consider your suggestions in the light of whether it will fulfil their requirements for data gathering and in the light of the humanist goal of yielding accurate information for policies in line with their goals, I am truly sorry for getting involved in your game of Fantasy Census question setting.