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.

rio

UK

#106 Dec 12, 2012
mikev483 wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
I never said there was a medical reason, I said that abortion is a medical procedure.

I am not judge why a woman decides to terminate a pregnancy, and I think it is her right, as the law says.
I am a firm believer in a woman's right to abortion.

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#107 Dec 12, 2012
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Fair point

I hear what you say.

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#108 Dec 12, 2012
mikev483 wrote:
it implied nothing,YOU ASSUMED.
So why did you say...
mikev483 wrote:
but i would bet YOU are happy to make the tax-payer complicit in abortions.
yes?
no?
..as if it was some sort of issue when it now appears that it's not an issue for you?
mikev483 wrote:
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?
"other posts of mine on this thread"????

Any other posts of yours came after I made my post and not before. In other words, at the time I made my post it was impossible for me to read your "other posts".

Well, not without my breaking the laws of physics.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#109 Dec 12, 2012
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said there was a medical reason, I said that abortion is a medical procedure.
I am not judge why a woman decides to terminate a pregnancy, and I think it is her right, as the law says.
I am a firm believer in a woman's right to abortion.
so you would be in favour of medically unnecessary cosmetic surgery,being done free on the NHS?
rio

UK

#110 Dec 12, 2012
mikev483 wrote:
<quoted text>
so you would be in favour of medically unnecessary cosmetic surgery,being done free on the NHS?
I don't really have an opinion on that, but I cannot see what that has to do with abortions on the NHS.

In an ideal world, of course, every medical treatment should be available on the NHS where it is free, otherwise, you have a two-tier healthcare: one for those who can pay and the other for those who cannot afford it.

Maybe if there were less smokers and less alcoholics treated on the NHS, it could divert its attention towards botox injections and breast implants on healthy patients, don't you agree?

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#111 Dec 12, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
So why did you say...
<quoted text>
..as if it was some sort of issue when it now appears that it's not an issue for you?
<quoted text>
"other posts of mine on this thread"????
Any other posts of yours came after I made my post and not before. In other words, at the time I made my post it was impossible for me to read your "other posts".
Well, not without my breaking the laws of physics.
so i did .

ill have to burst your bubble here but contrary to what you may believe i DO NOT sit waiting for your next post or change my opinion to get one up on you.

what i said in my posts i stand by.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#112 Dec 12, 2012
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't really have an opinion on that, but I cannot see what that has to do with abortions on the NHS.
In an ideal world, of course, every medical treatment should be available on the NHS where it is free, otherwise, you have a two-tier healthcare: one for those who can pay and the other for those who cannot afford it.
Maybe if there were less smokers and less alcoholics treated on the NHS, it could divert its attention towards botox injections and breast implants on healthy patients, don't you agree?
you do realise that the NHS is not actually free dont you? someone has to pay wages and bills,that would be the tax payer.

so you want to pick and choose who gets treatment?
can i have a go?
how about if we treat less HIV drug addicts and less illegal immigrants,YOU AGREE?

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#113 Dec 12, 2012
mikev483 wrote:
<quoted text>
so i did .
ill have to burst your bubble here but contrary to what you may believe i DO NOT sit waiting for your next post or change my opinion to get one up on you.
what i said in my posts i stand by.
You stand by your posts, that's fine with me.

However, don't expect me to travel an hour or so into the future and read your posts before I make mine.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#115 Dec 12, 2012
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>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.
You can't find a good article on it because there aren't any.

Even people with medical conditions that make it difficult to control their weight CAN control it with strict dietary measures.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#116 Dec 12, 2012
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
You stand by your posts, that's fine with me.
However, don't expect me to travel an hour or so into the future and read your posts before I make mine.
i dont expect you to do anything.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#117 Dec 12, 2012
mikev483 wrote:
<quoted text>
so millions of Jewish and Muslim parents are "abusive" ?
that would be your opinion not a fact.
Possibly not 'millions' in the UK, but it is my understanding,(unlike Hedonist in the USA) that they are that abusive for religious reasons. Yes, that is certainly my view. And it is a fairly black-&-white issue in temperate zones from the medical and scientific opinions that I have read. People tend to be more religious in the USA and perhaps that accounts for the difference in the perspective of H and I? The views I read may be more objective, or it may be the fact that the UK,(unlike the southern USA) is in an entirely temperate climate zone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_the_U...
...The Southeastern United States, including coastal Texas and Florida, generally have a hot, humid, subtropical...Unquote.
mikev483 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Nothing to do with 'left or right' politically.(Please don't start that). It is an important discussion and a question of clinical judgement and advice.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#118 Dec 12, 2012
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't find a good article on it because there aren't any.
Even people with medical conditions that make it difficult to control their weight CAN control it with strict dietary measures.
Everyone without exception? How do you know?
rio

UK

#119 Dec 12, 2012
mikev483 wrote:
<quoted text>
you do realise that the NHS is not actually free dont you? someone has to pay wages and bills,that would be the tax payer.
so you want to pick and choose who gets treatment?
can i have a go?
how about if we treat less HIV drug addicts and less illegal immigrants,YOU AGREE?
I know perfectly well that the NHS doesn't come free, most people pay quite a lot of money for it, and have no choice in it.
That's why, I think, the NHS should offer most of the medical treatments.

Now, if you want to pick and chose who should have priority of treatment and who should have to be sent at the bottom of the queue, I have a suggestion.

Anyone who uses alcohol or tobacco should only be treated after undergoing full detox. That would reduce all the cardiac and pulmonary problems, the gastric ailments. Less open-heart surgeries, less liver transplants, less colonic cancers, etc....

Anyone overweight should only be treated after substantial weight loss. That would reduce also cardiac and digestive problems, joints problems, spinal problems, etc...

What do you think?
Wow, I have cut down 2/3 of the NHS cost in one go!

I don't really think that circumcisions and abortions take much of NHS time and resources, being straightforward procedures (a matter of minutes for circumcision), and their cost are mere pitance compared to cardi-vascular problems, etc...

As for administrating drugs in a clinic to registerd addicts, a nurse could do that. Again at next to no cost.

Treating less HIV patients wouldn't be very clever. It would be like ignoring a timebomb in the room. HIV can be transmited don't you think? I don't know about illegal immigrants. Do we have any?
rio

UK

#121 Dec 12, 2012
the real Blunt Mocker wrote:
how about any immigrant who arrives with AIDS is sent straight back? and of course we have illegal immigrants, thousands of them.
Well, I am just wondering after watching some programes about border control on the TV.

Looks to me that illegal are bailed and told to report after they get caught. There is no visible effort to deport them.

Apparently you need their consent, or at least have proof where they come from. So an undocumented illegal can play the game for quite a long time.

Also, Britain can only deport to countries that accept their nationals back; they don't always do that.

After a few years of misery and useless paperwork, the Home Office finally give Leave to Remain, and that's that!

This is why I made the sarcastic comment: "Do we still have illegals?"

You can't really blame them for trying if we have such a dumb system, can we?
Have you seen the "arrests" made at the Dover terminal for the "stowaways" caught onboard trucks? It's cups of tea, friendly interviews, distribution of blankets, medical examinations, etc... Years later, they are in the streets.
But the (sometimes) innocent truck driver gets the fines!!!
Absolutely laughable!!
Amanda

UK

#122 Dec 12, 2012
CrimeaRiver wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism is't another religion.... how can it be?

Atheists by definition don't believe in anything, by that reasoning Atheism can not be regarded as a religion
Atheists vehemently believe in a spiritual vacuum. It may be an empty space but atheists can see it and feel it just as anyone in an organised religion sees and feels a deity. Atheism as a religion has its own symbols and mantras and "church" leaders. The fact that people get so excited about it is just like a religious fever.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#123 Dec 12, 2012
rio wrote:
<quoted text>
I know perfectly well that the NHS doesn't come free, most people pay quite a lot of money for it, and have no choice in it.
That's why, I think, the NHS should offer most of the medical treatments.
Now, if you want to pick and chose who should have priority of treatment and who should have to be sent at the bottom of the queue, I have a suggestion.
Anyone who uses alcohol or tobacco should only be treated after undergoing full detox. That would reduce all the cardiac and pulmonary problems, the gastric ailments. Less open-heart surgeries, less liver transplants, less colonic cancers, etc....
Anyone overweight should only be treated after substantial weight loss. That would reduce also cardiac and digestive problems, joints problems, spinal problems, etc...
What do you think?
Wow, I have cut down 2/3 of the NHS cost in one go!
I don't really think that circumcisions and abortions take much of NHS time and resources, being straightforward procedures (a matter of minutes for circumcision), and their cost are mere pitance compared to cardi-vascular problems, etc...
As for administrating drugs in a clinic to registerd addicts, a nurse could do that. Again at next to no cost.
Treating less HIV patients wouldn't be very clever. It would be like ignoring a timebomb in the room. HIV can be transmited don't you think? I don't know about illegal immigrants. Do we have any?
you know that the NHS is not free and that many people pay quite a lot for it but still want to waste their money on drug addicts most of which have never or will never contributed ANYTHING to this nation or their communities.

as for HIV you do know that the vast majority of new HIV cases in the UK are actually African immigrants,you want to treat them?
ivana

London, UK

#124 Dec 12, 2012
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.
I just typed keyywords into google took less than a minute.
http://www.circumstitions.com/Rights.html#chi...

Article 8, part 1:
States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity [...and not be surgically altered to look like his father].

Article 13, part 1:
The child shall have the right to freedom of expression...[infant circumcision circumvents the child's freedom to decide for himself what parts of his body to keep, and his freedom of sexual expression by permanently and unnecessarily diminishing his sexual sensations].

Article 24, part 3:
States Parties shall take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children.

20 November, 1989

This Convention has been ratified by every country in the world except Somalia and the United States of America.
Thinking

Cirencester, UK

#126 Dec 12, 2012
How about backdating that to the descendents of anyone that arrived in America hundreds of years ago with diseases the indigenous population had no immunity to?

Maybe not?
the real Blunt Mocker wrote:
how about any immigrant who arrives with AIDS is sent straight back? and of course we have illegal immigrants, thousands of them.
Amanda

UK

#127 Dec 12, 2012
rio wrote:
<quoted text>

Anyone who uses alcohol or tobacco should only be treated after undergoing full detox. That would reduce all the cardiac and pulmonary problems, the gastric ailments. Less open-heart surgeries, less liver transplants, less colonic cancers, etc....
Anyone overweight should only be treated after substantial weight loss. That would reduce also cardiac and digestive problems, joints problems, spinal problems, etc...
What do you think?

Why do you think a full detox would reduce cardiac, pulmonary, gastric ailments? Having a full detox prior to treatment won't reverse decades of damage. Poor diet, addiction, alcohol abuse, smoking are directly linked to deprivation. Addictions are mental health conditions and linked to wider societal problems. Detox programmes are very expensive. The problems are caused by the complexity of modern life and cannot be resolved by letting the sick die.
Amanda

UK

#128 Dec 12, 2012
mikev483 wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
The majority of abortions in the UK are performed using the reason mental distress.

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) 14 min IB DaMann 23,565
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 18 min scientia potentia... 48,827
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 22 min IB DaMann 5,713
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 6 hr Cuddles6778 21,887
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 7 hr _Susan_ 258,042
News Louisiana Christians reclaim safe space by runn... 10 hr Eagle 12 5
Athetists' best bet is that there is a God. 14 hr Scaritual 78
More from around the web