Richard Dawkins Crushed By Anglican Minister

Onesimus

Richard Dawkins has been labelled an "embarrassment to atheism" after clashing with a priest in a debate on BBC Radio 4. The author of the God Delusion could not recall the full title of Charles Darwin's 'The Origin Of Species' during a discussion with Giles Fraser, Former Canon Chancellor of St Paul's Cathedral, over a poll conducted for the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (UK) which found that self-identified Christians didn't go to Church, or read the bible.

Read more here

Did anyone hear this debate? If so, what were your thoughts on it?

lmaopml

Onesimus wrote: »

Richard Dawkins has been labelled an "embarrassment to atheism" after clashing with a priest in a debate on BBC Radio 4. The author of the God Delusion could not recall the full title of Charles Darwin's 'The Origin Of Species' during a discussion with Giles Fraser, Former Canon Chancellor of St Paul's Cathedral, over a poll conducted for the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (UK) which found that self-identified Christians didn't go to Church, or read the bible.

Read more here

Did anyone hear this debate? If so, what were your thoughts on it?

Yeah I heard a 'clip' on Newstalk, that's what they do broadcast 'clips' - However, I don't think it was as massive as all that. The guy tripped himself up when he was speaking under his own steam, it's not exactly news that Dawkins is human like everybody else. Nothing new really - I did 'chuckle' though a point proven!

Turtwig

Roflmao! I'm certainly not Dawkins biggest fan but seriously forgetting the sub title to on the origin of the species is nothing. I'd wager that less than 1% of biologist know the full name.

As to what that book has to do with atheism is beyond me.

lmaopml

Jernal wrote: »

Roflmao! I'm certainly not Dawkins biggest fan but seriously forgetting the sub title to on the origin of the species is nothing. I'd wager that less than 1% of biologist know the full name.

As to what that book has to do with atheism is beyond me.

Yep, that was exactly the thing that drew chuckles; along with the serious charges he made too about a Christian who is not necessarily bookish (many aren't, it's not a requirement either ) but lives their lives in faith to the 'bookish' that is Scripture. The irony of the charge being made was funny iykwim.

It was Newstalk though - and I only heard a clip - It's not exactly surprising that Dawkins speaks this way though no? Let him at it - he's busy.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Onesimus

Jernal wrote: »

Roflmao! I'm certainly not Dawkins biggest fan but seriously forgetting the sub title to on the origin of the species is nothing. I'd wager that less than 1% of biologist know the full name.

As to what that book has to do with atheism is beyond me.

Yeah thats what I first thought. But I think what he actually stumbled him upon was the fact that...Dawkins was making this poll about Christians and that based on their answer for not getting the ''who wrote the first book of the Gospel'' right was then taken by him to prove a point that God doesnt exist.

So the minister bounced back with. ''Whats the title for the origin of species?'' and when Dawkins failed to answer it was like saying ''so if atheists like yourself can not remember the title of a book then ( by Dawkins same token about Christianity ) that means Atheism is wrong and untrue as would evolution be for evolutionists.

I think that is what he stumbled dawkins on. Not the actual ''forgetting'' of the book, but more than that because of the argument Dawkins was using against Christians for forgetting who wrote the first book of the Gospel.

dlofnep

Onesimus wrote: »

Richard Dawkins has been labelled an "embarrassment to atheism" after clashing with a priest in a debate on BBC Radio 4.

By whom? It certainly wasn't by his well respected peers in the Scientific community, that's for sure.

Onesimus wrote: »

The author of the God Delusion could not recall the full title of Charles Darwin's 'The Origin Of Species'

He couldn't remember the sub-text to the title, so what? I forget my age sometimes, shít happens.

Whether or not here remembered the subtext doesn't change that fact that he has an impeccable knowledge on the theory of evolutionary biology, nor does it change the fact that he understand Evolution by Natural Selection better than Darwin himself understood it. The fact that you have to dig this deep to try and find a flaw with Dawkins, is indicative of your desperation to try and attack his credibility.

lmaopml

dlofnep wrote: »

By whom? It certainly wasn't by his well respected peers in the Scientific community, that's for sure.



He couldn't remember the sub-text to the title, so what? I forget my age sometimes, shít happens.

Whether or not here remembered the subtext doesn't change that fact that he has an impeccable knowledge on the theory of evolutionary biology, nor does it change the fact that he understand Evolution by Natural Selection better than Darwin himself understood it. The fact that you have to dig this deep to try and find a flaw with Dawkins, is indicative of your desperation to try and attack his credibility.

The point isn't that he doesn't understand evolution or has not contributed hugely to understanding of same, many Christians don't argue this - if you don't get the 'charge' first made, than the point is pretty much lost, so is any humour in the exchange.

dlofnep

lmaopml wrote: »

The point isn't that he doesn't understand evolution or has not contributed hugely to understanding of same, many Christians don't argue this - if you don't get the 'charge' first made, than the point is pretty much lost, so is any humour in the exchange.

He was charged as an embarrassment to atheism. This is clearly not the case. He put his foot in the mud, it happens. He'll deal with it.

Onesimus

dlofnep wrote: »

By whom? It certainly wasn't by his well respected peers in the Scientific community, that's for sure.



He couldn't remember the sub-text to the title, so what? I forget my age sometimes, shít happens.

Whether or not here remembered the subtext doesn't change that fact that he has an impeccable knowledge on the theory of evolutionary biology, nor does it change the fact that he understand Evolution by Natural Selection better than Darwin himself understood it. The fact that you have to dig this deep to try and find a flaw with Dawkins, is indicative of your desperation to try and attack his credibility.

Yeah Man lmao is right, read my post just before yours. You''ll get how the humour is displayed and how his ''poll'' for Christians as a study was shown up to be a fallacious one.

lmaopml

dlofnep wrote: »

He was charged as an embarrassment to atheism. This is clearly not the case. He put his foot in the mud, it happens. He'll deal with it.

Yep, and hopefully he will continue doing what he is really good at too - the things I respect and admire him for, and always will.

ISAW

dlofnep wrote: »

He was charged as an embarrassment to atheism. This is clearly not the case. He put his foot in the mud, it happens. He'll deal with it.

you are missing the pôint! Dawkings was suggesting something about christian belief based on them not knowing who wrote the first book of the bible. so he was asked what is the sub title of something central to his own academic field. It completely crushes his argument that because people may not know who wrote a biblical book that it shows something about Christianity being true or false just as his not knowing the title of Darwins book does not mean his biological comments should be dismissed.

Onesimus

ISAW wrote: »

you are missing the pôint! Dawkings was suggesting something about christian belief based on them not knowing who wrote the first book of the bible. so he was asked what is the sub title of something central to his own academic field. It completely crushes his argument that because people may not know who wrote a biblical book that it shows something about Christianity being true or false just as his not knowing the title of Darwins book does not mean his biological comments should be dismissed.

THANK YOU Thats exactly what I was trying to say but you put it better than I.

Onesimus

muppeteer

ISAW wrote: »

It completely crushes his argument that because people may not know who wrote a biblical book that it shows something about Christianity being true or false just as his not knowing the title of Darwins book does not mean his biological comments should be dismissed.

I don't think it was his argument that not knowing who wrote a biblical book "shows something about Christianity being true or false" but that it shows that self identified Christians can have a limited knowledge of their foundational writings. I'd agree it would be a poor reason to suggest that the census Christians are not true Christians by this question alone. The census Christians that don't believe in a resurrected Jesus does this far more effectively.

Just a third (32%) believe Jesus was physically resurrected, with one in five (18%) not believing in the resurrection even in a spiritual sense

A couple of the more telling snippets.

Only half (54%) of the self-identifying Christians describe their view of God in Christian terms, with the others using the term in the sense of the laws of nature (13%), some form of supernatural intelligence (10%), or whatever caused the universe (9%). Six per cent do not believe in God at all.

Just a third (32%) believe Jesus was physically resurrected, with one in five (18%) not believing in the resurrection even in a spiritual sense; half (49%) do not think of Jesus as the Son of God, with one in twenty-five (4%) doubting he existed at all.

http://richarddawkinsfoundation.org/

darjeeling

Dawkins doesn't say that Christianity isn't true because many of its followers can't remember the name of the first book of the New Testament. What he says is that many people who identified themselves as Christians also say that they do not believe in many core tenets of Christianity, and - yes - that many didn't know which book came first in the New Testament. Dawkins emphasised that he wasn't saying these people weren't Christian, but inviting listeners to decide for themselves.

Fraser ignored the substantive points, and chose to go for the more trivial one over who failed to name Matthew's gospel. His silly retort about Darwin's book suggests that he thinks the Origin of Species (to give it its incorrect name) is something like a sacred, foundational text for atheists. He underlined his folly by calling Dawkins 'the High Pope of Darwinism'. That says a good deal more about his beliefs than Dawkins's.

Fraser also accused Dawkins of telling people they aren't Christian (despite him repeatedly stressing that he wasn't). He commanded Dawkins to respect people when they self-identified as Christian, regardless of their actual beliefs. Well at least the Church in England has come a long way from all those heresy trials! :pac:

Despite the above, I was impressed by Fraser's stand over the Occupy London protests last year, and think he's got more to contribute to debate than he showed in this exchange.



:pac: Actually, as recently as 2005, the Church of England general Synod was considering whether to bring in heresy tribunals for dissenting clergy. Link.

JimiTime

Thread title fail!

This is what I was expecting!

dvpower

ISAW wrote: »

you are missing the pôint! Dawkings was suggesting something about christian belief based on them not knowing who wrote the first book of the bible. so he was asked what is the sub title of something central to his own academic field. It completely crushes his argument that because people may not know who wrote a biblical book that it shows something about Christianity being true or false just as his not knowing the title of Darwins book does not mean his biological comments should be dismissed.

Anyone who has read any of his many books on evolutionary biology would be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, given that the bit he couldn't recall on the title was 'by Means of Natural Selection' I think most fair people will accept that he does know the full title of 'Origin of Species' and that he just suffered a bit of a brain freeze, but I can understand the temptation to get the boot in.

The net point that he was making (which was wider than proclaimed Christians not knowing who wrote the first book of the bible) remains a reasonable one; that some people who call themselves Christians don't know much about what Christianity is about. tbh I don't know what raising this point contributes to anything; I suppose that many people of any faith - probably most people of any faith - wouldn't be able to pass a basic test on the main tenets.

Here's the clip.

darjeeling

JimiTime wrote: »

Thread title fail!

This is what I was expecting!

Or maybe the coming to pass of Dawkins' destined appointment with the Church Van of Doom.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOdhudBl3Vc

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

Thread title fail!

This is what I was expecting!

True - I know some pretty fat Anglican ministers, but I was looking forward to seeing one who was big enough to crush Dawkins.

Zombrex

The full title of Darwins work was "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

That is a little more than "Genesis" :P

Also Dawkins answer was "There is a sub title with respect to the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.". Dawkins pretty much nailed it on the head, he just wasn't confident enough of the exact wording.

qrrgprgua

AMAZING!!! What a idiot. I am not dancing on anyones grave here, Because on both sides there are people who present themselves as Christian/Atheist but who are such without hard reasoning.... But come on Dawkins the "Educated doctor" I am not a great fan of Darwin but I did study in uni the subtitle by means of natural selection. I would not have remembered the "or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." part. But then again I am not a darwin expert ... LIKE DAWKINS!

qrrgprgua

Zombrex wrote: »

The full title of Darwins work was "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

That is a little more than "Genesis" :P

Also Dawkins answer was "There is a sub title with respect to the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.". Dawkins pretty much nailed it on the head, he just wasn't confident enough of the exact wording.

Hmmm and who wrote the book called "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution"..
So you can spin it whatever way you like. But he didn't nail it. He didn't know his facts. And is a very basic fact for Dawkins.

The Radio Clip is pretty obvious there is not much hiding there.

Benny_Cake

Dawkins didn't remember the full title, not a hanging offence and it could happen to anyone. I'd hope that it might teach him a little humility though, he is a brilliant biologist and deserves much credit for getting science to a wide audience. When it comes to the subject of religion however, he seems to lose all sense of perspective. There is a notion that all Christians reject evolution and Darwin, that simply isn't the case and needs to be nailed at every opportunity.

ISAW

muppeteer wrote: »

I don't think it was his argument that not knowing who wrote a biblical book "shows something about Christianity being true or false" but that it shows that self identified Christians can have a limited knowledge of their foundational writings. I'd agree it would be a poor reason to suggest that the census Christians are not true Christians by this question alone. The census Christians that don't believe in a resurrected Jesus does this far more effectively.

i would seriously doubt whether a vast majority of christians are heretics and apostates. I certainly dont consider Dawkings an authority on such matters. while the census does provoke interest, even if true it does not provide any argument for a majority atheist society or that Christianity is futile in a minority christian society.

i would think it does indicate that core Christians didnt really worry much about core theology and biblical fundamentalism and it might indicate some ignorance on such elements of theology or Biblical literacy which -given they were central to Protestantism and other breakaway groups are better known there.

You cant seriously believe Dawkings is arguing for a return to core beliefs as opposed to pick and mix Christianity?

And I would remind you that core belief in Darwinian "evolution" have been modified by catastrophic interpretations e.g the influence of events of Biblical proportions -pun intended on classical darwinism.

ISAW

dvpower wrote: »

The net point that he was making (which was wider than proclaimed Christians not knowing who wrote the first book of the bible) remains a reasonable one; that some people who call themselves Christians don't know much about what Christianity is about.

Some not most . And I would reckon some talking about "evolution" misuse the term outside the biological field or use it withing the biological field meaning the classical meaning but disregarding external influences such as ones comparable to Biblical catastrophes. Punctuated Equilibria for example.

Zombrex

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Hmmm and who wrote the book called "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution"..
So you can spin it whatever way you like. But he didn't nail it. He didn't know his facts. And is a very basic fact for Dawkins.

He stated there is a subtitle about "the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life."

The subtitle is "the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life" :rolleyes:

He got flustered about the exact wording, despite actually getting the wording correct.

That is a world apart from a "Christian" not knowing that the first book of the Bible is called Genesis or what it is about.

It is not uncommon at all to meet Christian experts who for example, get the exact wording of Biblical passages wrong. If they understood the passages, and represented what the passages were about accurately, but were attacked by non-Christians for getting the exact wording wrong, there would be uproar on this forum.

Seriously the anti-Dawkins crowd just embarrass themselves with this sort of thing, like someone on Boards.ie harassing a user cause they have spelling mistakes in their posts.

ISAW

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Dawkins didn't remember the full title, not a hanging offence and it could happen to anyone. I'd hope that it might teach him a little humility though, he is a brilliant biologist and deserves much credit for getting science to a wide audience. When it comes to the subject of religion however, he seems to lose all sense of perspective. There is a notion that all Christians reject evolution and Darwin, that simply isn't the case and needs to be nailed at every opportunity.

This is an interesting point. Many of the atheist smart ass philosophy 101 and Physics 101 and Biology 101 denizens who get into the "Christianity is silly" issue pull up ignorant a,nd silly arguments themselves such as
-in the Bible God tells people to rape children (probably culled from the skeptics Bible interpretation)
-christians are Biblical fundamentalist creationists (germane to the above discussion and only true of a fringe element -*a bit like judging science on the basis of cold fusion or UFOs)
-christians dont know what they believe -this is the above argument

the think is we can apply the same arguments to science. It is difficult to say what exactly a cell or an atom is. Those who science claims to have a really good insight are far removed from the normal populace. This isnt so true for christianity. there isnt secret hidden knowledge, arcane lore or esoteric elements except again for a fringe group.

If i was to have a go at wormhole theory or ESP or tacyhons or space warps or godlike extra physical beings
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/science/20dawkins.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

After two hours of conversation, Professor Dawkins walks far afield. He talks of the possibility that we might co-evolve with computers, a silicon destiny. And he’s intrigued by the playful, even soul-stirring writings of Freeman Dyson, the theoretical physicist.

In one essay, Professor Dyson casts millions of speculative years into the future. Our galaxy is dying and humans have evolved into something like bolts of superpowerful intelligent and moral energy.

Doesn’t that description sound an awful lot like God?

“Certainly,” Professor Dawkins replies. “It’s highly plausible that in the universe there are God-like creatures.”

Mind you these gods are explained as working within scientific laws we dont fully understand. Just as Christians believe God is reasonable. the only difference is the Christian God choses to be reasonable but dawkings gods are forced to obey the laws of nature which are immutable and he believes were not created by God.

Manach

However taking Zombrex's boards analogy, if the poster was a well known "Grammer Nazi", with a history of flaming others for missteps, then calling that poster out for their own failing is justified.

FrostyJack

How is this even getting any airtime? He says (according to the survey, not him) that some people who identify themselves as christian ; "don't read the bible, don't go to church, don't believe jesus was the son of god, don't even know what the first book of the new testament is". If he forgot what natural selection was, didn't go to university, didn't believe Darwin left England etc it might be case to call him a hypocrite or that he put his foot in it. This story is not like with like, he almost said the full name, he didn't not know it, it is disingenuious to say it is a hit against anything Dawkins has said.
As one of the tweets below the article says "Richard Dawkins couldn't name the full title of The Origin of Species, therefore God exists #isthisright"
Very slow news day.

FrostyJack

ISAW wrote: »

Mind you these gods are explained as working within scientific laws we dont fully understand. Just as Christians believe God is reasonable. the only difference is the Christian God choses to be reasonable but dawkings gods are forced to obey the laws of nature which are immutable and he believes were not created by God.

Again these 2 things are not the same. The Christian god appears from no where and created everything, defies all known natural laws. People evolving into beings with god-like abilities is not the same thing. The latter can be somewhat explained, the first is can only be made up.

ISAW

Zombrex wrote: »

He got flustered about the exact wording, despite actually getting the wording correct.

That is a world apart from a "Christian" not knowing that the first book of the Bible is called Genesis or what it is about.

Which wasnt the question
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/ipsos-mori-religious-and-social-attitudes-topline-2012.pdf
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/ipsos-mori-religious-and-social-attitudes-tables-2012.pdf

Q23. What is the first book of the NEW Testament?

seems you dont know the details either but not to worry.

screening questions:%
A.I answered the question myself:69
B.Someone else answered on my behalf but checked with me first:12
Base: All respondents asked the screener question in Great Britain and Northern Ireland (2,107)

Q2A. In the Census, what did you/they record as YOUR religion?
Base: All in England and Wales who completed the Census themselves or who had the Census filled out by someone else with their knowledge (1,553)

It is not uncommon at all to meet Christian experts who for example, get the exact wording of Biblical passages wrong. If they understood the passages, and represented what the passages were about accurately, but were attacked by non-Christians for getting the exact wording wrong, there would be uproar on this forum.

You are not being attacked for misquoting the Ipsos Mori poll but for suggesting that atheists have a better insight into Christianity than christians do based on it!

Seriously the anti-Dawkins crowd just embarrass themselves with this sort of thing, like someone on Boards.ie harassing a user cause they have spelling mistakes in their posts.

I agree. frequently spelling flames happen to me when other people have had their arguments completely dismantled and themselves nailed to the wall based on their own claims.

muppeteer

ISAW wrote: »

i would seriously doubt whether a vast majority of christians are heretics and apostates.

The survey would seem to suggest that a large number of self identified Christians are indeed heretics and smaller number apostates. That is if we use the accepted definition of heretic and apostate.

While it would be unfair to deny somebody their self identification as Christian it would just be dishonest to suggest that these Christians are following mainstream Christian doctrine as they seem closer to Unitarianism than to Anglicanism.

I certainly dont consider Dawkings an authority on such matters.

Indeed and I doubt he would present himself as one without something to back his opinion up, which is perhaps is why he was commenting on a survey.

while the census does provoke interest, even if true it does not provide any argument for a majority atheist society or that Christianity is futile in a minority christian society.

I don't think anyone suggested this. You seem to be the only one who thinks any claims where made in this regard. May I ask where you got this impression?

i would think it does indicate that core Christians didnt really worry much about core theology and biblical fundamentalism and it might indicate some ignorance on such elements of theology or Biblical literacy which -given they were central to Protestantism and other breakaway groups are better known there.

By not worrying about core Christian theology they do seem to have drifted very far from the core though. Many perhaps so far as to no longer warrant the title of being mainline Christian.

You cant seriously believe Dawkings is arguing for a return to core beliefs as opposed to pick and mix Christianity?

He doesn't seem to be making any argument about what Christians should do.
If I were to take a wild guess I would think he would support the opposite in fact, pick and mix seems to produce a healthy enough society in the UK where many favour marriage equality and such. It even produces 6% who don't believe in God so it can't be all bad:)

What he seems to be really arguing for is that despite having a majority population of Christians in the UK, that many of these Christians don't follow mainline Christian teaching in the slightest. This information can be used when making policy in regards of faith schools.

And I would remind you that core belief in Darwinian "evolution" have been modified by catastrophic interpretations e.g the influence of events of Biblical proportions -pun intended on classical darwinism.

I'm not sure what you mean here at all.

mcmoustache

After 30+ years of ministers debating Dawkins, they finally did it! He has finally been crushed. The last quarter of a century has been tough on believers who had to listen to this guy challenging the core tenets of their beliefs.

They've had to sit there and take it while this seemingly highly intelligent scientist claimed that God didn't exist and they've never been able to offer evidence to the contrary. Never have they been able to show him up. Never have they made him look silly. Never have they been able to catch him out.

Now, believers have finally got one over on Dawkins. They've made him stumble over the long subtitle of a book. This is HUGE! I bet that neo-atheists everywhere are quaking in their boots right now at this.

Let us not underestimate what this means. This is the greatest Christian victory in over 1000 years. Dawkins is on the ropes now and it's only a matter of time before he accepts God.

These are truly great times to be a Christian.

ISAW

muppeteer wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean here at all.

Two points i would like to raise related to this

1. take a look at page 44 or 177 on the bok of the bible

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/ipsos-mori-religious-and-social-attitudes-tables-2012.pdf

You note the 1133 weighted base ?

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/2921/Religious-and-Social-Attitudes-of-UK-Christians-in-2011.aspx

Technical note

Ipsos MORI interviewed a representative sample of 2,107 adults aged 15+ across the United Kingdom. From this sample, a total of 1,136 adults defined themselves as Christians. Interviews were conducted face-to-face over the period 1st April to 7th April, 2011. Data are weighted to match the profile of the population.

So out of 2107 they took 1136 people who matched demographic profiles of the census
But they are doing all this in order to suggest that the religious profile offered by the census is wrong? We have to therefore assume the other profiles all match in everythig but religion. So what the survey is then saying is that in a representative sample of 1136 people of the 50 million or so people over 15 years of age that maybe the number of UK adults self-identifying as Christian has fallen significantly since the 2001 Census frm say 75 to maybe 50 percent.

Now i dont necessarily accept point 1 but let us imagine we do accept it.

Point 2: Morberts claim in relation to Norway was if people are not really church oif England / church of Norway and they only just put that down on the census form without believing it then somehow it means 70% of Norway is atheist!
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76811495&postcount=2119
look at the cartoon.


Now whatever we think about weightings or not can clearly see that whether they are "true" christians or whatever the weighted and indeed even the unweighted whole sample of 2107 does NOT show the UK to be Atheist!

Nor is the USA!

http://commons.trincoll.edu/aris/files/2011/08/NONES_08.pdf
Percentage Nones
(N= 1,106)
There is no such thing =Atheist =7%

muppeteer

ISAW wrote: »

Two points i would like to raise related to this

1. take a look at page 44 or 177 on the bok of the bible

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/ipsos-mori-religious-and-social-attitudes-tables-2012.pdf

You note the 1133 weighted base ?

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/2921/Religious-and-Social-Attitudes-of-UK-Christians-in-2011.aspx


So out of 2107 they took 1136 people who matched demographic profiles of the census
But they are doing all this in order to suggest that the religious profile offered by the census is wrong? We have to therefore assume the other profiles all match in everythig but religion. So what the survey is then saying is that in a representative sample of 1136 people of the 50 million or so people over 15 years of age that maybe the number of UK adults self-identifying as Christian has fallen significantly since the 2001 Census frm say 75 to maybe 50 percent.

Now i dont necessarily accept point 1 but let us imagine we do accept it.

Point 2: Morberts claim in relation to Norway was if people are not really church oif England / church of Norway and they only just put that down on the census form without believing it then somehow it means 70% of Norway is atheist!
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76811495&postcount=2119
look at the cartoon.


Now whatever we think about weightings or not can clearly see that whether they are "true" christians or whatever the weighted and indeed even the unweighted whole sample of 2107 does NOT show the UK to be Atheist!

Nor is the USA!

http://commons.trincoll.edu/aris/files/2011/08/NONES_08.pdf
Percentage Nones
(N= 1,106)
There is no such thing =Atheist =7%

Whut? I'm unsure what this has to do with anything in my previous post but anyway...

The weighting of survey data is a normal practice. I'm really confused as to why you would have a problem with this unless you are just looking to pick holes in the results.
The profile offered by the census is correct as far as we can make out. What this survey does is ask additional questions that would be impractical to ask in a census given the level of detail. It isn't dismantling the census profiles but adding additional detail.

This data cannot be used to indicate a

"fall in UK adults self-identifying as Christian has fallen significantly since the 2001 Census frm say 75 to maybe 50 percent."

unless a similar survey was conducted in 2001. This survey makes no such claim.

As for the rest of your post I, as before with your

And I would remind you that core belief in Darwinian "evolution" have been modified by catastrophic interpretations e.g the influence of events of Biblical proportions -pun intended on classical darwinism.

comment I have no idea what you are trying to say.
Who is trying to say the UK is atheist? Where are you getting this from?

PDN

This can be taken to the Atheist/Christian debate thread. One thread that obsesses with the definition of 'atheist' in Norway is already one too many.