Census data reveal there are 4million...

Census data reveal there are 4million fewer Christians and one in four is now an atheist

There are 394 comments on the Mail on Sunday story from Dec 11, 2012, titled Census data reveal there are 4million fewer Christians and one in four is now an atheist. In it, Mail on Sunday reports that:

Data from last year's census today revealed the stunning decline of religion in the UK - with the number of Christians dropping by more than 4million.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Mail on Sunday.

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#86 Dec 12, 2012
CrimeaRiver wrote:
<quoted text>
And continues to spiral downwards in some parts of the Muslim world. But places like Abu Dhabi, Saudi Arabia and Dubai are technological marvels in terms of architecture and mod cons for the super rich. But the technology is not home grown, they look to China and Japan for development.
I fear America might have started down that road. If the religious right managed to get Creationism on the syllabus, then its not long before Science in schools will start to be dumbed down. They couldn't ban stem cell and 'in vitro' research but managed to put a stop to govt funding.
We could be seeing another cycle of the most developed nations failing because of religious dogma
Good post

The religious right are a scary lot who would happily scrap their constitution and turn America into a theocracy.

Scary
rio

UK

#87 Dec 12, 2012
mikev483 wrote:
<quoted text>
but i would bet YOU are happy to make the tax-payer complicit in abortions.
yes?
no?
An abortion is a medical procedure, therefore the domain of our National Health Service.

Or maybe you would prefer that back-street abortions become the norm for those who can't afford private hospital fees.

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#88 Dec 12, 2012
mikev483 wrote:
<quoted text>
if Islam was SO advanced in the past what happened to it?
a lot of the Islamic world would appear to be stuck in the 5th century.
They gave up on science and started to take their religion too seriously and gradually drowned in a cesspit of piety.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#89 Dec 12, 2012
mikev483 wrote:
<quoted text>
if Islam was SO advanced in the past what happened to it?
a lot of the Islamic world would appear to be stuck in the 5th century.
That kind of radical change in culture could never be caused by just one event or person. But around 1100 CE we have both the first Crusades (Pope Urban II) and the philosophical influence of Al-Ghazali.

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#90 Dec 12, 2012
mikev483 wrote:
<quoted text>
but i would bet YOU are happy to make the tax-payer complicit in abortions.
yes?
no?
Why not?

The taxpayer already pays for treatment to the morbidly obese and to smokers.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#91 Dec 12, 2012
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
An abortion is a medical procedure, therefore the domain of our National Health Service.
Or maybe you would prefer that back-street abortions become the norm for those who can't afford private hospital fees.
you think ALL abortions are undertaken for medical reasons?

you are either ignorant of the facts or simply lying.

now,rio/ronan this is a classic example of you jumping to nasty bigoted left wing conclusions. i am not against medically necessary abortions.
that's pissed on your campfire a bit hasn't it.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#92 Dec 12, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
They gave up on science and started to take their religion too seriously and gradually drowned in a cesspit of piety.
really.

do you think that Industrial Revolution Britain did not take its religion seriously?

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#93 Dec 12, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Why not?
The taxpayer already pays for treatment to the morbidly obese and to smokers.
why not what?

nowhere in that post did disagree with the funding of anything.

more lefty conclusion jumping?
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#94 Dec 12, 2012
mikev483 wrote:
<quoted text>
but i would bet YOU are happy to make the tax-payer complicit in abortions.
yes?
no?
For ethical and clinical reasons, abortions can be perfectly justified. The regulations regarding abortion are to protect health, not the religious prejudices of an abusive parent.

I don't adhere to some people's idea of live and let live which seems to be indulge in child mutilation first and then live and let live. Abortion and child mutilation are wrong when not carried out for strictly clinical reasons and a healthy outcome.

When religion comes in the room, reason goes out the window.

At least I suggested a compromise over child abuse that I wasn't at all happy to allow, yet I was found somewhat 'aggressive'. It seems that is how atheists are regarded sometimes however tolerant or reasonable we are.

Religion = superstition
And I see nothing 'beautiful' or useful in religious faith.
Thinking

Cirencester, UK

#95 Dec 12, 2012
Unbelievably, it's also still currently legal to f**k animals in Germany.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20523950
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you give us links on that, because I cannot find anywhere the UN pronouncing itself on circumcision.
The World Health Organisation is ambivalent about it, and many medical authorities have come in favour of circumcision, notably in Africa in the fight against HIV/AIDS and other STD.
So, I really would like to know when the UN debated about circumcision.
As a matter of interest, the German parliament has just voted a law protecting the practice of circumcision, after some people took surgeons to court and tries to have it banned.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#96 Dec 12, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not just a religious argument --
" http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php... ;
The last line of the article kind of puts it in perspective.
The issue is 'non-clinical reasons'. In the UK they are generally motivated by religion.(The last line of the article appears to explain nothing?)

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#97 Dec 12, 2012
mikev483 wrote:
<quoted text>
really.
do you think that Industrial Revolution Britain did not take its religion seriously?
You're right - religion in those days was a very serious business indeed.

However, unlike the Ottomans, it didn't get to the stage where scepticism, enquiry and freethinking became stifled by religious fundamentalism.

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#98 Dec 12, 2012
mikev483 wrote:
<quoted text>
why not what?
nowhere in that post did disagree with the funding of anything.
more lefty conclusion jumping?
Looks like you're back-pedalling here.

You said...
mikev483 wrote:
but i would bet YOU are happy to make the tax-payer complicit in abortions.
yes?
no?
Implying that you are not happy for the tax-payer to pick up the tab for abortions.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#99 Dec 12, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Why not?
The taxpayer already pays for treatment to the morbidly obese and to smokers.
Not all morbidly obese people are able to control their weight by dieting or surgery. It is obviously true that most people's weight problems are due to poor diet and poor self-discipline, but a few unfortunate individuals can apparently be both undernurished and over-weight. Many people find that impossible to believe, I don't know why.

I can't find a very good article on this quickly, but this is some evidence that it is apparently can happen...
From:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22729799
In the undernourished group, 28% were overweight (BMI 25-30) and 19% were obese (BMI >&#8201;30).
Unquote.
rio

UK

#100 Dec 12, 2012
mikev483 wrote:
<quoted text>
you think ALL abortions are undertaken for medical reasons?
I never said that, and once again you attribute me thoughts I have never expressed.

An abortion, regardless of its reason, IS a medical procedure.
That is the responsability of the NHS in Britain, since it has the quasi monopoly on medical surgery in the country.

Although abortions can be performed privately, only a very small proportion of the population could afford them. Therefore, it's the responsability of the NHS.

Now, if a woman who wants an abortion is turned down by the NHS and visits a cheap back-street abortionist, she will still be entitled to free medical care under the NHS in case of complications. A&E and care will become very costly to the tax payer then.

Consequently, it far better for the NHS to perform the abortion with all the medical facilities at its disposal.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#101 Dec 12, 2012
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>For ethical and clinical reasons, abortions can be perfectly justified. The regulations regarding abortion are to protect health, not the religious prejudices of an abusive parent.
I don't adhere to some people's idea of live and let live which seems to be indulge in child mutilation first and then live and let live. Abortion and child mutilation are wrong when not carried out for strictly clinical reasons and a healthy outcome.
When religion comes in the room, reason goes out the window.
At least I suggested a compromise over child abuse that I wasn't at all happy to allow, yet I was found somewhat 'aggressive'. It seems that is how atheists are regarded sometimes however tolerant or reasonable we are.
Religion = superstition
And I see nothing 'beautiful' or useful in religious faith.
so millions of Jewish and Muslim parents are "abusive" ?

that would be your opinion not a fact.

ill be honest i am in no way a practicing Christian and have very little time for Islam,but the way the Left attempt to impose their ideals on others is wrong.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#102 Dec 12, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Looks like you're back-pedalling here.
You said...
<quoted text>
Implying that you are not happy for the tax-payer to pick up the tab for abortions.
it implied nothing,YOU ASSUMED.

if you care to read other posts of mine on this thread you will see where i stand on abortion.

why not give the "conclusion jumping" a rest?

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#103 Dec 12, 2012
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>The issue is 'non-clinical reasons'. In the UK they are generally motivated by religion.(The last line of the article appears to explain nothing?)
Although I do not like the idea that any decisions are "motivated by religion", this is not the only motivational factor for a lot of people.

Whether these other factors really have any merit or not might be debatable, but they are still influential factors devoid of religious motivation.

I also found it fascinating that in Spain most female babies get ear piercings (not medically necessary), which could be considered cruelty. Yet as this procedure cannot be linked to religion, it is apparently not controversial.

Luckily I had 2 girls and was not faced with this decision, but prior to knowing which sex we were going to have I did a lot of research and was torn on which way to go. Like most real life decisions, it's really not as black-and-white as people want it to be.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#104 Dec 12, 2012
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said that, and once again you attribute me thoughts I have never expressed.
An abortion, regardless of its reason, IS a medical procedure.
That is the responsability of the NHS in Britain, since it has the quasi monopoly on medical surgery in the country.
Although abortions can be performed privately, only a very small proportion of the population could afford them. Therefore, it's the responsability of the NHS.
Now, if a woman who wants an abortion is turned down by the NHS and visits a cheap back-street abortionist, she will still be entitled to free medical care under the NHS in case of complications. A&E and care will become very costly to the tax payer then.
Consequently, it far better for the NHS to perform the abortion with all the medical facilities at its disposal.
tell me.when an healthy woman terminates an healthy baby and the pregnancy poses NO MEDICAL RISK to the woman,what is the medical reason behind the termination?

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#105 Dec 12, 2012
lolol wrote:
I think anyone who believes that people answering intrusive census questions believe in santa too.
I am sure more people than myself answered 'none of your business' to census takers about my religous affiliations. No telling what they wrote down in answer, but I doubt it was what I told them.
...except that U.S. census takers don't ask questions about faith or religious affiliation, which is why those data invariably come from organizations like the Pew Forum or ARIS. The census from this forum was conducted in England and Wales. The original data can be access through this link:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-cen...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 39 min River Tam 23,590
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr scientia potentia... 48,864
What are the best arguments against religion? 3 hr IB DaMann 6
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 4 hr IB DaMann 5,720
Athetists' best bet is that there is a God. 4 hr Scaritual 92
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 4 hr Mintz4004 21,889
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 6 hr Into The Night 258,047
More from around the web