The "myth" of the dying church

[Fireball]

Free, in post #70, examining the Census numbers pretty much busted Drich.  Argument over.  Other surveys demonstrate that church membership is sagging.

I declare this thread over.  It is no use for Drich to beat this dead horse any more.

Beat it!? He'll fricassee it, hollow the marrow out of the bones, marinate what's left and still strut off like a pigeon exclaiming how he schooled those atheist "sports".  He can keep this going beyond where any atheist will respond, and claim that "they went silent in defeat".

[Minimalist]

Which is exactly why I always invite him to blow his stupid fucking god out of his ass.

[Cheerful Charlie]

We have passed the arguing part of the thread and now are into the laughing at the loser portion of this thread.

[Minimalist]

Post #103.  Drippy does not usually get that far without triggering such a response, Charlie.

[Fireball]

Post #103.  Drippy does not usually get that far without triggering such a response, Charlie.

Familiarity does truly breed contempt. But that doesn't explain threads elsewhere that are dozens of pages long and have spawned bastard children that are growing like weeds. Don't forget that he infested this thread near mid-life, too.

[Bucky Ball]

.... while Gallup poll people hand selects a few hundred if not thousand people to ask.

Wrong again.
Gallup uses professional sampling techniques. It absolutely DOES NOT "hand select" anything or anyone.
That's not AT ALL how "polling" works. They use scientifically validated sampling methods.
(And then he has the balls to say he researches everything .... bwahahahahahahahaha).

https://towardsdatascience.com/sampling-...e34111d808

[Drich]

Drippy thinks everyone is out to get him and his stupid fucking god.  A real persecution complex.

In my case he is right but that does not apply to everyone.

nice to see you sticking with the 40s era zingers and one liners..
hold on a sec phone ringing.. 


Oliver Hardy telephoned.. he would like me to convey to you, that he wants his lampoons back..

I guess that does not leave you with much besides the cussing and moon landing conspiracies.

Drippy, its been years of you riding the same one-trick pony.  Do you seriously think that any of the same-old-shit arguments that you trot out to support your phony god merit more than a one-liner?  If you do, you are delusional....which is obvious from your sad attachment to primitive religion.

you are the king of one liners wft are you talking bout? how is it one liners work and are perfectly ok for you but on the rare occasion i do post a one line response with a joke or maybe two I am phoney one?

Look at the sum total of your body of work when have you ever left more than a cohesive paragraph that did not include some nut bag conspiracy or anti government propaganda? everything you say and do is a salute to profanity and zingers..

[Drich]

....

if you got a question about how to resolve those things I have answers. I can't share lest you ask lest i be preach'n. So start another thread with your best and toughest questions then hold on to something.

The fact is, despite your claims, religion and the churches are taking a big hit.  It will be getting worse as time goes on as younger demographic cohorts who are far less religious replace the old population cohorts who are much more religious die off.

So nobody much here thinks the churches are not in fact slowly fading and that this won't get worse in the future.

The only way for Christianity to stop this is to answer the questions about theology's claims that create a lot of problems that seem to indicate God does not exist.  You do not have to preach to demonstrate the problems of God can be dealt with and that there is good hard evidence God does in fact exist.

I myself am satisfied that the evidence that each new generation is far more non-religious and skeptical than the preceding generation and that this is going to become a massive problem for religion in the future.

https://www.barna.com/research/atheism-d...eration-z/

More than any other generation before them, Gen Z does not assert a religious identity. They might be drawn to things spiritual, but with a vastly different starting point from previous generations, many of whom received a basic education on the Bible and Christianity. And it shows: The percentage of Gen Z that identifies as atheist is double that of the U.S. adult population. To examine the culture, beliefs and motivations shaping this next generation, Barna conducted a major study in partnership with Impact 360 Institute, now available in the brand new Gen Z report. In this release, we take a look at their views on faith, truth and the church in a time of growing religious apathy.

...
So what has led to this precipitous falling off? Barna asked non-Christians of all ages about their biggest barriers to faith. Gen Z nonbelievers have much in common with their older counterparts in this regard, but a few differences stand out. Teens, along with young adults, are more likely than older Americans to say the problem of evil and suffering is a deal breaker for them. It appears that today’s youth, like so many throughout history, struggle to find a compelling argument for the existence of both evil and a good and loving God.
...

The problem of evil is becoming a big deal breaker for many and this will only get worse as time goes on.

again by the numbers of the us census from 2000 to 2008 or 9 there was no change beyond the margin of error. we have yet to compile the census of 2020. everything else is conjecture and speculation.

[Drich]

I do see the increase in population, and of course along with it there will be an increase in religious affiliation. However, my point was about percentages, not about how the Christian population increases with the general population.

Here are the stats according to your own link:

In 1990 the adult population was 175,440,000
In 1990 the Christian population was  151,325,000

Which is 86.9 %

In 2008 the adult population was 228,182,000
In 2008 the Christian population was 173,402,000

Which is 75.8 %

A decrease of a full 11%

These statistics are wholly in agreement with my previous post.

Therefore yes, with all statistics considered, it indicates that Christian affiliation is on the decline. It by no means whatsoever indicates an increase. Just because the Christian population increases with the general population does not mean that Christian affiliation is increasing. It's actually decreasing. 

Between 1990 and 2008, a full 11% of the general population no longer identified as Christian.

Also, according to the well respected research organization called PEW Research the percentage today is now at only 70.6%, indicating a continuing trend of decline.

It's all about the percentages, and not the population.

The truth is that people are getting more educated as education conditions the mind to better rationalize and reason more effectively. Now, people are emerging from a time where 'belief' was acceptable, and moving towards a state of confirmation of fact. And they simply don't want to believe in talking snakes any more because they see it for what it is; a ridiculous tall-tale.

In the next 20 years, the older generation born between 1940 and 1960 will have mostly died off. That's when the 70.6% will drop well below 50% by 2040. The older folks were born during a time when religion was the rule of the day, but as soon as you get into the mid 1960s is when the declination of religious beliefs kicks into high gear. Even the young people of today look at religious people with a blank stare because they think they are out of their minds.

Comments?

wow... how dishonest are you???

Yes from 1990 your number are correct, but those number do not explain the total delt given.

WE HAD 3 Data points! not two.


    1990               2001            2008

 
Adult population, total 
 175,440,000  207,983,000  228,182,000
 
Christian, total
 151,225,000   159,514,000  173,402,000
      86.19%           76.69%         75.99%
So again between 90 and 01 was the major drop there has been very little to no (if you take in the margin of error) since 2001 to 2008 that is why there are three points of data here and not two. so as to give an accurate time frame as to when the decline in the church happened!

But you know that and decided to run with your BS numbers anyway just to try and fool lazy people into a false narrative about the church. This is disgusting behavior especially when you proclaim the use of intellectual honesty.

You are acting as if those points in any way change the % number or that they somehow change the fact that there are more and more people not affiliating with the Christian religion. They do not.

Whether you include 2001 or not, it does not change the fact that between 1990 and 2008, we have an 11% drop. Also, new data shows further decreases to nearly a 17% drop since 1990.

We can even include 2001 and the trend will still be the same. Your attempt to obfuscate this point is duly noted, and considering you call yourself a Christian I would expect a higher degree of honesty than I would get from an atheist, wouldn't you agree? 

So why is your dishonesty about this point so important to you? What do you hope to gain by contesting the data, which is quite clear?

Between 1990 and 2008 we have an 11% drop. Since then, we have dropped further to just over 70%.

Those are the facts.

READ THE OP SMART GUY!!!

The article is about the myth of the dying church.. meaning the are addressing current data of the church in decline. and as I pointed out all current data shows the church is not in an incline or decline. we need that third data point from the 2020 census to determine the fate of the church.

That is why your argument is fake news/irrelevant here. it is an attempt to change the narrative by excluding the primary discussion point about the modern church decline. which again from 2000 to 08 shows no movement beyond the stated margin of error. that is what intellectually honest assessment looks like.

[Bucky Ball]

Complete bullshit, as per his usual.
https://www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/u-s-...rls_ii-84/

[Cheerful Charlie]

....

if you got a question about how to resolve those things I have answers. I can't share lest you ask lest i be preach'n. So start another thread with your best and toughest questions then hold on to something.

The fact is, despite your claims, religion and the churches are taking a big hit.  It will be getting worse as time goes on as younger demographic cohorts who are far less religious replace the old population cohorts who are much more religious die off.

So nobody much here thinks the churches are not in fact slowly fading and that this won't get worse in the future.

The only way for Christianity to stop this is to answer the questions about theology's claims that create a lot of problems that seem to indicate God does not exist.  You do not have to preach to demonstrate the problems of God can be dealt with and that there is good hard evidence God does in fact exist.

I myself am satisfied that the evidence that each new generation is far more non-religious and skeptical than the preceding generation and that this is going to become a massive problem for religion in the future.

https://www.barna.com/research/atheism-d...eration-z/

More than any other generation before them, Gen Z does not assert a religious identity. They might be drawn to things spiritual, but with a vastly different starting point from previous generations, many of whom received a basic education on the Bible and Christianity. And it shows: The percentage of Gen Z that identifies as atheist is double that of the U.S. adult population. To examine the culture, beliefs and motivations shaping this next generation, Barna conducted a major study in partnership with Impact 360 Institute, now available in the brand new Gen Z report. In this release, we take a look at their views on faith, truth and the church in a time of growing religious apathy.

...
So what has led to this precipitous falling off? Barna asked non-Christians of all ages about their biggest barriers to faith. Gen Z nonbelievers have much in common with their older counterparts in this regard, but a few differences stand out. Teens, along with young adults, are more likely than older Americans to say the problem of evil and suffering is a deal breaker for them. It appears that today’s youth, like so many throughout history, struggle to find a compelling argument for the existence of both evil and a good and loving God.
...

The problem of evil is becoming a big deal breaker for many and this will only get worse as time goes on.

again by the numbers of the us census from 2000 to 2008 or 9 there was no change beyond the margin of error. we have yet to compile the census of 2020. everything else is conjecture and speculation.

Ohhhhh, bollocks!  See Free's post #70.  When one does not cherry pick a few numbers like you indulge in here, the churches in the USA definitely show losses over the recent years.  You are a silly person.

[Drich]

I'm not using a cross section poll here my good man. these are offical US numbers. this is where they literally ask every single house hold (among other things) what they believe about God!

I think you're rather overly enamored of the census. All the census does is ask what label people apply to themselves -- not what they believe, or how often they go to a house of worship in response to it, or how ardent they are about it -- and certainly not how consistent and non-hypocritical they are about it. In some cases they will just be stating a cultural association. Despite being an atheist, for instance, I grew up in the fundagelical world, and so in some sense could label myself Christian (as opposed to Muslim or whatever).

Indeed, there are reasons why people might even give untruthful answers there. The thought has crossed my mind that maybe it's better if the census records me as a Christian. In another ten years the Thought Police might come knocking on the doors of all religiously unaffiliated for all I know, taking us off to re-education camps. Is it really the government's business what my personal beliefs are? In some ways I feel like misdirecting them for their impertinence.

 are you serious? I quoted the census because it is indisputable PROOF it is the offical numbers and the ONLY WAY from which any one can say what the masses believe in this country. is belief on the incline is it on the decline, the census asked each and every person what they believe and records it..

That said I already pointed out going to church s not a measure of belief. as true biblical christian is freedom from religion. meaning it is direct contact with God on a personal level meaning there is no need for priests or popes or any other typical go betweens. Albeit our personal titles mean nothing to god (meaning we are ot christian because we say we are or go to church every sunday. we are christian because Christ calls us/judges us to be) this works both ways.. meaning you are not atheist because that is what you believe and muslims are not muslims because what they think nor are jews jews. it is all completely dependant on what Christ says and does on our judgement day.

That said... for everyone not christ or does not know how he will judge another all we have is what we think or how we self identify.

Even so. traditional worship is not mandated by anyone but religion. The bible does not say take sunday and worship me. the bible does not say we must all sit in a specific building on sunday. again what we are doing right now! counts as a church worship service according to Christ. Did you count yourself as christian? well your interests and need to comment says you are indeed seeking..

[Drich]

So why is your dishonesty about this point so important to you?

Lying for jeebus is a time honored tradition with these assholes.

I think you're rather overly enamored of the census. All the census does is ask what label people apply to themselves -- not what they believe, or how often they go to a house of worship in response to it, or how ardent they are about it -- and certainly not how consistent and non-hypocritical they are about it.

Drippy will use whatever numbers he thinks shows his barbaric beliefs in the best light. If other sources made his shit stink less beliefs look better, he'd be using those. He's a cherry picker of the first order.

what ever numbers... like the US census.. just completely throw away biased numbers..

[Drich]

 So you are using the same rigged polling system that said clinton would win in a land slide? didn't they destroy their crediblity with everyone except the far left wing nutters? because again who did they poll? students at major universities class coming out of the science departments? I'm not using a cross section poll here my good man. these are offical US numbers. this is where they literally ask every single house hold (among other things) what they believe about God!

Oh dear!  We have lots of surveys. Gallup.  Pew.  Barna. Harris. Sorry, but the many surveys not a steep rise in Nones, atheists and agnostics.  A drop in church attendance, and trust in organized religion.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/248837/chur...cades.aspx

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- As Christian and Jewish Americans prepare to celebrate Easter and Passover, respectively, Gallup finds the percentage of Americans who report belonging to a church, synagogue or mosque at an all-time low, averaging 50% in 2018.

U.S. church membership was 70% or higher from 1937 through 1976, falling modestly to an average of 68% in the 1970s through the 1990s. The past 20 years have seen an acceleration in the drop-off, with a 20-percentage-point decline since 1999 and more than half of that change occurring since the start of the current decade.
...

again CC poll men crap next to in empirical data source. polls take a cross section meaning polls will try and ask as many as they can some times 100, or 200k people will respond.. but that is still less than 1% of the population.

The census asks everyone. that is 350,000,000 people gain your poll asks 100,000 maybe.

So if 10 groups of 100k different people in each group where ask a question that is still less than 1% of what the total census tells us.

So when I say the polls are a crap standard that is why. They do not represent the people of this country. they only represent the people who where polled if the poll takers are honest. This 2016 poll shows all popular polls to not be honest. As every single one predicted a clinton landslide. when in fact trump won.

so again quoting polls mean absolutely nothing in the real world. polls are basically away for liberal news to fill time by creating their own stories with the slant they want to put on things.

[Drich]

I take it this Drich individual has some sort of history on atheist forums?  He/she sounds like
and posts like a true theist arsehole, ignoring all the facts and logic that define a well-presented
argument.  Made up statistics, blatant lies, an intellectual deficit, denial of responsibility, a lack
of netiquette, arrogance, insults thrown at any opposition... the whole fucking shebang.

I presume the "D" stands for dickhead?

Ahhhh....

You said you where old and there was nothing I could tell you that you have not already heard!

But what you meant was you would not allow me to tell you anything you have not already heard.

I have this theory that in the church or out side of it basically no matter what you believe the same people the same personality types exist. for those in the church tend to be assigned names like closed minded or ignorant uneducated foolish ect.. but i say this is true for those outside the church as well,and all we need do is just look for the same exact signs..

Like for instance people coming to preassigned conclusion without proof or citing evidence, they just look for excuses to label things and people so they do not have to consider contemplate or even listen to what others might have to says.

You guys asked me why i took part i the mama joke thing. and I told you to help gauge who most of you where so as to not blow your minds... this post in part is what I would call a blown mind. not meaning I over loaded it with so much new and amazing info the person is left dumb founded. What I mean to say is i go off the rails of th typical christ and start forging my own path just a little bit or in this case simply exercising and demonstrating my ability to fact find and research, and people become offended that I am not a push over and they shut down their minds thoughts and ideas based on nothing.. based on the idea they do not like me or what I WIll have to say. so the assign me a label that allows them to dismiss me and what I have to say without reading anything.

now one of two things will happen if left unchecked. guys like this will tire of me going about my business unchecked and will begin to hassle the admins to have me bann or they will leave.

I honestly do not want this t happen. while i know I can not be friends with everyone I do not want to inspire blind hate for no reason. which again always starts with a simple attempt to dismiss by ad hoc attacks, and when I do not go away or it is obvious to most these ad hoc attacks are baseless out comes the hate.

So maybe we can start over and you an show me where you think I have ignored facts and logic. ets start here with a link or a simple post number..

[Drich]

So you are using the same rigged polling system that said clinton would win in a land slide? didn't they destroy their crediblity with everyone except the far left wing nutters? because again who did they poll? students at major universities class coming out of the science departments? I'm not using a cross section poll here my good man. these are offical US numbers. this is where they literally ask every single house hold (among other things) what they believe about God!

Nope. Totally wrong.
The polls were largely correct.
The "landslide" comment is a total LIE. Clinton did win the popular vote. 

https://www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/u-s-...religious/
They are a very well respected research organization.
They ask about GOD.

However, the existence of God is a proposition that does not rely on how many people believe in God.

Oh ... and of course it just happens to be YOUR god that exists.

from your article:

Of the 13 final national polls conducted the week before the election that tested the four-way presidential contest, only one had Trump ahead and 12 put Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton on top.

Anything else the have to say is spin!

why? because they were predicting the next president of the united states not who would win the popular vote. and even if they did they where all way way off on the numbers. 58% to trump 32% the popular vote did not have a spread that large.. again fake news covering it's own ass and you guys just sop it up like gravy.

[Bucky Ball]

I'm not using a cross section poll here my good man. these are offical US numbers. this is where they literally ask every single house hold (among other things) what they believe about God!

It's "household", not "house hold".
Since your English is so poor, you really should learn how to do a spell check.
Those who represent the gods should at least be able to write a correct sentence in English.  

Scientific sampling techniques are reliable within their range of uncertainty.
Obviously you know nothing about polling or sampling or probability.

From The United States Census
https://ask.census.gov/prweb/PRServletCu...D=KCP-5050

"Does the Census Bureau have data for religion?
The Census Bureau conducted censuses of religious bodies at 10-year intervals from 1906 through 1936. The results were published with statistics on topics such as the number of members in congregations, number of church edifices, seating capacity, value and debt on church property, and so forth. The census publications varied with the first two having volumes of reports and the 1926 and 1936 censuses releasing a Summary report and a second volume made up of individual reports on the denominations listed in the census. See our detailed listing of reports from past censuses (1790 on).

There also was a survey of religious affiliation done as part of the Current Population Survey in 1957 with the results published in a report entitled, "Religion Report by the Civilian Population of the United States, March 1957." The Census of Religious Bodies began as a few questions on the Social Statistics form of the 1850 census. When the Bureau became permanent in 1902, it became possible to separate some data collection from the decennial census. The Census of Religious Bodies was a stand-alone census taken every  10 years between 1906 and 1936. Data were collected in 1946 but the funding for tabulation was not forthcoming. The entire census was eliminated in the mid 1950's. Copies of the report are in the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration (http://www.nara.gov).

The U.S. Census Bureau does not collect data on religious affiliation in its demographic surveys or decennial census. Public Law 94-521 prohibits us from asking a question on religious affiliation on a mandatory basis; in some person or household surveys, however, the U.S. Census Bureau may collect information about religious practices, on a voluntary basis. Therefore, the U.S. Census Bureau is not the source for information on religion, nor is the Census Bureau the source for information on religious affiliation. Some statistics on religion can be found in the Statistical Abstract of the United States, Section 1, Population.
We do publish economic data on Religious Organizations down to the county and ZIP Code level in the County Business Patterns series. Religious organizations are comprised of (1) establishments primarily engaged in operating religious organizations, such as churches, religious temples, and monasteries and/or (2) establishments primarily engaged in administering an organized religion or promoting religious activities. Additionally, the County Business Patterns series provides data on used merchandise stores that are operated by religious organizations."

[Drich]

Gallop polls proven themselves to be crap.. but only if we had some proof that they were bias crap... oh that's right clinton lost the eletion and did not win by the projected landslide gallop claimed...

...

So again for the 10th time census numbers beat any polling. my numbers are census numbers... get it?

As I said ... the census trumps nothing in particular. It's just another data point, and it is not an indicator of church attendance or piety or involvement or even belief, but rather, of self-applied labels that people prefer (or more exactly, prefer to admit on the census, which as I've already pointed out, people may well have motivation to conceal or lie about something as personal as their religious beliefs. In fact in Trump's America, lots more people have motivation to be wary of how what they say might be used against them).

Polls are sometimes wrong, and rarely very wrong. That doesn't invalidate all polling. Here's an article that discusses it:

https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2019...n-and-now/

As the article points out, you have to consider what the alternatives to polling are -- basically, they are reading tea leaves.

Key takeaways:

Despite doubts, studies have shown that well designed polls are accurate.

Unreliable sources are all that America had for years. Before George Gallup began gathering opinion data in the 1930s, politicians relied on such things as newspaper editorials, letters to the editor, and the frequency of labor strikes to read the mood of the people.

...the facts are that public opinion polls have only become more accurate over the years.

Even though polls aren’t perfect, they are currently the best way to measure public opinion.  “If the public decides polls are bad and stops answering them, it will be hurting itself in the long run,” says Saad. The alternative is to rely on commentators or online information. “And there’s no way to gauge the accuracy.”

wow...

so hard numbers where everyone in the united states is essentially 'POLLED' that... that number is wrong..

so however when we only poll ( THE SAME THING WE DO IN A CENSUS BUT TO A MUCH SMALLER DEGREE) let's say .01% of the total population that number the one guessing whateveryone else is thiking and doing.. that number is more correct.

whatever happened to common sense?

come on people i know most of you are suckled on the news bottle and are trained to believe anything a 'reputable' news organization says or tells you without questions and I know polls are apart of that...

but seriously folk when does a .01% cross section (poll) refute 100% data from every voting age person in the country?(census)

are you guys really so obstinate as to argue empirical data just because the christian has it on his side?

[Drich]

We have passed the arguing part of the thread and now are into the laughing at the loser portion of this thread.

indeed.

"polls are more accurate than a census" (which is basically a poll that the whole country takes rather than a handful of people who where walking past a court house on a given day!)

[Paleophyte]

Do you guys understand how data is sourced and how it is rated?

Yes, do you? TL;DR It isn't from the US Census Bureau and it isn't worth shit.

I have several times given you my source as the us census and if any of you people cared to look it up you would find a neat spread sheet:

Have you noticed that isn't the US Census? To quote the US Census Bureau:

"The U.S. Census Bureau does not collect data on religious affiliation in its demographic surveys or decennial census. Public Law 94-521 prohibits us from asking a question on religious affiliation on a mandatory basis; in some person or household surveys, however, the U.S. Census Bureau may collect information about religious practices, on a voluntary basis. Therefore, the U.S. Census Bureau is not the source for information on religion, nor is the Census Bureau the source for information on religious affiliation."

It's a survey that the Census Bureau pulled the data from. Let me highlight the clues for you:

Table 75. Self-Described Religious Identification of Adult Population: 1990, 2001 and 2008
[In thousands (175,440 represents 175,440,000). The methodology of the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) 2008 replicated that used in previous surveys. The three surveys are based on random-digit-dialing telephone surveys of residential households in the continental U.S.A (48 states): 54,461 interviews in 2008, 50,281 in 2001, and 113,723 in 1990. Respondents were asked to describe themselves in terms of religion with an open-ended question. Interviewers did not prompt or offer a suggested list of potential answers. Moreover, the self-description of respondents was not based on whether established religious bodies, institutions, churches, mosques or synagogues considered them to be members. Instead, the surveys sought to determine whether the respondents regarded themselves as adherents of a religious community. Subjective rather than objective standards of religious identification were tapped by the surveys]

What you are quoting is a survey by Trinity College. The same sort of poll that you've been deriding for this entire thread. Tertiary data.

Source: 1990 data, Barry A. Kosmin and Seymour P. Lachman, "One Nation Under God: Religion in Contemporary American Society, 1993"; 2001 data, Barry A. Kosmin and Ariela Keysar, Religion in A Free Market: Religious and Non-Religious Americans, Who, What, Why, Where, 2006; 2008 data, Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture, Trinity College, Hartford, CT.

Oh, it isn't a survey. It's three different surveys that have done their best to replicate previous methodologies.

Just like uncle drich said.. why? because he does his research before he speaks and rarly does so from emotional want.

Then you'll have noticed that your data is at least a decade out of date and the methodology is 3 decades old. Further you'll have spotted the bias introduced by surveying only "residential households". Polling landlines using techniques developed in the 1980s is pretty much guaranteed to sample an ageing demographic and miss everybody who has switched to mobile. You'll also have noticed that the 1990 source is a book, not a peer-reviewed publication. And that's the methodology that the subsequent surveys followed.

Glad you did your homework though.

[Drich]

.... while Gallup poll people hand selects a few hundred if not thousand people to ask.

Wrong again.
Gallup uses professional sampling techniques. It absolutely DOES NOT "hand select" anything or anyone.
That's not AT ALL how "polling" works. They use scientifically validated sampling methods.
(And then he has the balls to say he researches everything .... bwahahahahahahahaha).

https://towardsdatascience.com/sampling-...e34111d808

gallop polls seek to poll a cross section of society meaning they want a true representation of black to whites to hispanics ect...
That is hand selection!
https://news.gallup.com/poll/128198/i've...nt-me.aspx 

Think about it moron if 72% are white then there is a 7.2 out of 10 chance that when they call/poll a white person will pick up, this number does not diminish it is 7.2 chance out of 10 every time they cal a number.. now if they did this truly randomly then where is the blacks or asians or the hispanic being polled to their proper percentiles?? 

no in order for asians blacks and hispanics to all have a representative say that have to limit the number of calls to whites black asians and hispanics. That means THEY ARE HAND SELECTED, maybe at random, meaning they do not know who the white man they are calling is... but they know they are calling a white christian democrate who lives in the DC area!!!

even says so on their web site!
This ensures that Gallup has a random cross section of the population that represents adults of every gender, race, religion, region, party affiliation, etc. in the country and in the correct proportions.

So again while they may not know the person's name they do know their race religion region and party affiliation.. that my slow learning brother is hand selection!

otherwise it would be truly random and could be 100K white people being asked.

[Minimalist]

you are the king of one liners

Thank you for the compliment.  In your case, a one-liner is necessary to meet the limits of your attention span.

[Drich]

maybe you oughta wait before you take your victory lap.. you will look less.. foolish, if I have idk the offical web site dispelling your conclusions..

[Drich]

Complete bullshit, as per his usual.
https://www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/u-s-...rls_ii-84/

again polls mean nothing compared to the census. we have 2 modern data points and we need the 2020 census to be certain.

[Drich]

The fact is, despite your claims, religion and the churches are taking a big hit.  It will be getting worse as time goes on as younger demographic cohorts who are far less religious replace the old population cohorts who are much more religious die off.

So nobody much here thinks the churches are not in fact slowly fading and that this won't get worse in the future.

The only way for Christianity to stop this is to answer the questions about theology's claims that create a lot of problems that seem to indicate God does not exist.  You do not have to preach to demonstrate the problems of God can be dealt with and that there is good hard evidence God does in fact exist.

I myself am satisfied that the evidence that each new generation is far more non-religious and skeptical than the preceding generation and that this is going to become a massive problem for religion in the future.

https://www.barna.com/research/atheism-d...eration-z/

More than any other generation before them, Gen Z does not assert a religious identity. They might be drawn to things spiritual, but with a vastly different starting point from previous generations, many of whom received a basic education on the Bible and Christianity. And it shows: The percentage of Gen Z that identifies as atheist is double that of the U.S. adult population. To examine the culture, beliefs and motivations shaping this next generation, Barna conducted a major study in partnership with Impact 360 Institute, now available in the brand new Gen Z report. In this release, we take a look at their views on faith, truth and the church in a time of growing religious apathy.

...
So what has led to this precipitous falling off? Barna asked non-Christians of all ages about their biggest barriers to faith. Gen Z nonbelievers have much in common with their older counterparts in this regard, but a few differences stand out. Teens, along with young adults, are more likely than older Americans to say the problem of evil and suffering is a deal breaker for them. It appears that today’s youth, like so many throughout history, struggle to find a compelling argument for the existence of both evil and a good and loving God.
...

The problem of evil is becoming a big deal breaker for many and this will only get worse as time goes on.

again by the numbers of the us census from 2000 to 2008 or 9 there was no change beyond the margin of error. we have yet to compile the census of 2020. everything else is conjecture and speculation.

Ohhhhh, bollocks!  See Free's post #70.  When one does not cherry pick a few numbers like you indulge in here, the churches in the USA definitely show losses over the recent years.  You are a silly person.

the church in the us shows no discernable loss between 2001 and 2008 the last most recent census numbers available. I have posted the actual spreadsheet used by the US census that shows no loss greater than the total margin of error meaning the church numbers have not dipped below the margin of error the census claims is possible i their efforts recording this data.. EVERYTHING ELSE IS SPECULATION! the only significant loss in the church was 20 years ago when we where in the middle of the greatest generation dying off. since then the numbers have been stable. meaning not even a whole percentage point on way or the other.

click on line 75
https://www.census.gov/library/publicati...ation.html

why is this so hard for you to accept it is the truth as far as the national numbers to this country are concerned.