I rejoice to be an atheist.

[Tiberius]

3%? Hardly. It's more like 60%.

@Mark and @Leo, I actually agree with both of you. I agree with leo in as much that if atheism ever became the social "norm" then people wouldn't call themselves atheists. I agree with Mark in as much that as long as religion is still in society and has an impact (even if there are 90% atheists) I think a lot of atheists would call themselves atheists.

[Edwardo Piet]

So its more about the impact than the quantity?

If football had such a word wide impact as religion altogether for instance; and it was considered so personal and close (worldwide) perhaps people WOULD call themselves afooballists or something if they thought it was crap; and they would be frowned upon perhaps? Lol.

I know sport and religion are very different. But I mean that IF football DID have as much impact as religion; then there might be those who negatively label themselves against football? If football had as much of an impact on the world as religion?

Hypothetically speaking of course. And I'm talking about if it had as much impact. Regardless of the percentage of the population who were football fans?

[Mark]

Thanks for your reply, but I fail to appreciate your point. Even if atheists were in a large majority, they would still describe themselves as atheist.

Then we a certainly in disagreement. I do not call myself asoccerfan or avegetarian for instance. Labeling yourself by what you are not is very contradictory and shouldn't be necessary.

I don't call myself a baseball fan, a lover of beef steak charred rare, or an atheist unless the appropriate context arises. But when someone asks me about my beliefs, I say that I'm an atheist.

This term incompletely but adequately describes my belief system. I certainly don't consider it to be pejorative, though I understand that some foolish people use it in a pejorative sense.

I don't know that we're in disagreement, frankly, since neither of us has the slightest legitimate concern for what terms the other uses to describe himself.

[leo-rcc]

I don't know that we're in disagreement, frankly, since neither of us has the slightest legitimate concern for what terms the other uses to describe himself.

That's a good point.

[fr0d0]

3%? Hardly. It's more like 60%.

I don't know where those results are held, I just heard from a reliable source. I'll see if I can dig them out. Do you have conflicting evidence then? Or is that just a feeling?

Also, and importantly, those are not people who call themselves christian but miss the actual accepted definition. Pretend christians may make up a larger number.

[bozo]

Rejoice in being an atheist? Never considered it as being a reason to "rejoice" ( a funny word that I rarely use ). Could that be because it is more often used by faith-heads???
I just think not believing in the truly incredible is actually no big deal.

[Tiberius]

3%? Hardly. It's more like 60%.

I don't know where those results are held, I just heard from a reliable source. I'll see if I can dig them out. Do you have conflicting evidence then? Or is that just a feeling?

Also, and importantly, those are not people who call themselves christian but miss the actual accepted definition. Pretend christians may make up a larger number.

I think we're actually both wrong. Here are some stats:

http://www.vexen.co.uk/UK/religion.html

Looks like you are more correct with the statement that there are more non-believers (according to recent polls) but there are certainly a lot more than 3% that go to church and call themselves Christian. As for your "pretend christian" argument, it's a no true scotsman, please refrain.

[fr0d0]

Shut it

The only definition is follower of christ. Most british people think that being born in the UK makes them christian. The scotsman is a scotsman is a scotsman. Tho' the analogy fits non christians who call themselves that quite well.

"Less than half of the British people believe in a God, yet about 72% told the 2001 census that they were Christian"


"and 66% of the population have no actual connection to any religion or church" Brilliant!


I find it interesting to see how zealous non religious ppl are. The 'religious fervour' would make any christian leader envious! (not suggesting non religion is a religion here peeps ...step away from the gun! )

---

Great find Adrian !

"The British public, both adults and children, are almost wholly ignorant of the basic facts surrounding Christians and other world religions. The Ofsted report on Religious Education (RE) in schools (2007) states that there is a problem even with teachers' insufficient knowledge of RE at primary school level and likewise with recruiting the correct specialists at secondary school level"


From those figures I think mine look correct - taken the decline in adherents/ those that attend weekly, that the church would consider to be the vast majority of 'actual' christians.

[Tiberius]

Shut it

This is an open forum, and petty insults like that don't go unnoticed (especially if you try to hide them immaturely by putting a smiley next to it).

The only definition is follower of christ.

So by that definition anyone could be a Christian as long as they followed the teachings of Jesus, so atheists for Jesus could rightly be called Christians.

Most british people think that being born in the UK makes them christian.

Proof?

The scotsman is a scotsman is a scotsman. Tho' the analogy fits non christians who call themselves that quite well.

You don't really get the no true scotsman fallacy do you? Perhaps you should read up on it.

"Less than half of the British people believe in a God, yet about 72% told the 2001 census that they were Christian"


"and 66% of the population have no actual connection to any religion or church" Brilliant!

This coming from the guy who in the same fricken' post said "The only definition is follower of christ.". You refute your own arguments! Since when did following Christ require you to believe in God???

[fr0d0]

Shut it

This is an open forum, and petty insults like that don't go unnoticed (especially if you try to hide them immaturely by putting a smiley next to it).

Well it's unfair as I can't argue that one with you as an admin. It wasn't a petty insult at all. It was a joke, a lighthearted comment. You seem to be taking unwarrented offence at my posts

The only definition is follower of christ.

So by that definition anyone could be a Christian as long as they followed the teachings of Jesus, so atheists for Jesus could rightly be called Christians.

If they were followers of Jesus, absolutely. Why not?

Most british people think that being born in the UK makes them christian.

Proof?

Those stats you linked

The scotsman is a scotsman is a scotsman. Tho' the analogy fits non christians who call themselves that quite well.

You don't really get the no true scotsman fallacy do you? Perhaps you should read up on it.

I know it very well, and my comments stand. What do you have a problem with?

This coming from the guy who in the same fricken' post said "The only definition is follower of christ.". You refute your own arguments! Since when did following Christ require you to believe in God???

You are obviously unfamiliar with the concept of following Christ. Nothing in what I've said is contradictory.