2067: the end of British Christianity

It’s often said that Britain’s church congregations are shrinking, but that doesn’t come close to expressing the scale of the disaster now facing Christianity in this country. Every ten years the census spells out the situation in detail: between 2001 and 2011 the number of Christians born in Britain fell by 5.3 million — about 10,000 a week. If that rate of decline continues, the mission of St Augustine to the English, together with that of the Irish saints to the Scots, will come to an end in 2067. That is the year in which the Christians who have inherited the faith of their British ancestors will become statistically invisible. Parish churches everywhere will have been adapted for secular use, demolished or abandoned.

Our cathedral buildings will survive, but they won’t be true cathedrals because they will have no bishops. The Church of England is declining faster than other denominations; if it carries on shrinking at the rate suggested by the latest British Social Attitudes survey, Anglicanism will disappear from Britain in 2033. One day the last native-born Christian will die and that will be that. These projections are based on the best available statistics: the censuses, the British Social Attitudes surveys and the British Election Study. But because these surveys are constructed differently, it’s not easy to crunch them into a single timeline. Crucially, a projection is not the same thing as a prediction. So feel free to take any apocalyptic vision of religion in Britain in 2067 with a pinch of salt.

It’s often said that Britain’s church congregations are shrinking, but that doesn’t come close to expressing the scale of the disaster now facing Christianity in this country. Every ten years the census spells out the situation in detail: between 2001 and 2011 the number of Christians born in Britain fell by 5.3 million — about 10,000 a week. If that rate of decline continues, the mission of St Augustine to the English, together with that of the Irish saints to the Scots, will come to an end in 2067. That is the year in which the Christians who have inherited the faith of their British ancestors will become statistically invisible. Parish churches everywhere will have been adapted for secular use, demolished or abandoned.

Our cathedral buildings will survive, but they won’t be true cathedrals because they will have no bishops. The Church of England is declining faster than other denominations; if it carries on shrinking at the rate suggested by the latest British Social Attitudes survey, Anglicanism will disappear from Britain in 2033. One day the last native-born Christian will die and that will be that. These projections are based on the best available statistics: the censuses, the British Social Attitudes surveys and the British Election Study. But because these surveys are constructed differently, it’s not easy to crunch them into a single timeline. Crucially, a projection is not the same thing as a prediction. So feel free to take any apocalyptic vision of religion in Britain in 2067 with a pinch of salt.


http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9555222/2067-the-end-of-british-christianity/


Loads more to read on this very interesting article

I guess it suits who ever is running the country even the world...

when you consider more and more stories come out of organised peadophile rings, child grooming, all manners of debauchery to me it shows who is really the prince of this planet.

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:I guess it suits who ever is running the country even the world...

when you consider more and more stories come out of organised peadophile rings, child grooming, all manners of debauchery to me it shows who is really the prince of this planet.

well yeah all those stories coming out about church officials did cause the decline in respect for the church

Potentially within my lifetime, I look forward to the day; it only makes sense that the more advanced and educated a nation becomes the faster the decline in traditional monotheistic religion. Hopefully with the losing of Christianity will also be greater attempts to confront the nonsense of Islam.

@les
it will hopefully be irrelevant, we are almost gods ourselves already.
we may not convince them all but we will simply evolve to the point where their obsolescence will no longer allow them any power.

it might sounds silly but, soon stemcell research will yield the ability to regenerate cells as new without the DNA decay of aging. Generally they do not support accept stem cell research so hopefully they avoid the technology and therefore do not take up the 'proto-immorality' shouldn't take long after that. of course they are hypocrites that deny Evolution yet use the medical tech that is reliant on evolution being correct to work

Of course they do, its easily justified to some religious nuts who just don't 'think' about things beyond their own selfish convenience.

Not sure we should be heading for any kind of immortality though, whether we could or not.

it is inevitable.
the first immortal is supposedly already born

the rate of medical tech I think it is true, once the genome map is completed and we master means on manipulating genes in existing cells it doesn't seem too hard to keep our vessels going for a lot longer than they do now (maybe not forever)

even from a cybernetic immortality line we are close less than 100 years close, probably only a couple of decades close.

the best way to end the afterlife debate is to make a real 'afterlife' ourselves

Nice though it seems do people realky want old age, with all it entails, prolonged like that? Not to mention we are already straining resources as is (not that I am under any impression the average joe would benefit from these advances in the near future).

Eilzel wrote:Nice though it seems do people realky want old age, with all it entails, prolonged like that? Not to mention we are already straining resources as is (not that I am under any impression the average joe would benefit from these advances in the near future).

you wont get old, you only age because the DNA in your cells degenerates the idea is that we would store a 'pure' version from the stem cells and once you current DNA had degraded enough you just 'refresh it' by copying the original back over the top.

resources is a problem for biological immortality.
but Cybernetic immortality would solve it as you wouldn't need a physical body just space on a Hard drive and power which could be solar power.
this would also rapidly increase space exploration as it is much easier/cheaper to make a long range space ship when you don't plan to house a squishy air breathing human in it

Eilzel wrote:Of course they do, its easily justified to some religious nuts who just don't 'think' about things beyond their own selfish convenience.

Not sure we should be heading for any kind of immortality though, whether we could or not.

Indeed, the more secular societies become religions lose any validity, because as seen they discriminate badly based on ideas that are centuries years old created by men, who knew no different for the time. Islam may have been forward thinking for its time, but in comparison today, many of its views are very backward and discriminating.

As to immortality, that again is people not accepting we are mortal and lets face it only the elite in societies would end up having access to this. I accept I am mortal and whilst there is good reason to prolong the life of geniuses who could accomplish more work, lets be honest and say many of us do not need to be. There is already to many humans on the planet and making all immortal or prolonging their lives to centuries old would cause the demise of the human population to the point it would become untenable.

why are we staying on earth?
with the goal date of 2045, it is already been set in motion

http://gf2045.com/itskov/
http://2045.com/
http://2045.com/news/33999.html

this is not going to be science fiction much longer
Surely this actually highlight the great gap between those that change the world and those that cling to traditional institutions.

And really that is just the beginning as soon as someone can actually create virtual universe to run real time simulation in the amount of knowledge that will be generated in such a short space of time will be phenomenal. Evolution, tectonics and so much more may finally move into law. Let alone the new stuff we find out that we haven't even been questioning yet.

Eilzel wrote:Potentially within my lifetime, I look forward to the day; it only makes sense that the more advanced and educated a nation becomes the faster the decline in traditional monotheistic religion. Hopefully with the losing of Christianity will also be greater attempts to confront the nonsense of Islam.

churches may not exist but Christians will always exist .

I think, to be perfectly honest, science can be just as evil as religion.
In the wrong hands, both have the potential to bring down humanity and life as we know it.

Science cannot be evil because it isn't an ideology- but it can be destructive.

The written words of some religions though are clearly wicked and command the most heinous acts. Ideologies of course are always the creations of humans (including religion), amd therefore tied to the selfish wills of some people.

Science is just a way of understanding things, it doesn't ask anything of anyone.

Eilzel wrote:Science cannot be evil because it isn't an ideology- but it can be destructive.

The written words of some religions though are clearly wicked and command the most heinous acts. Ideologies of course are always the creations of humans (including religion), amd therefore tied to the selfish wills of some people.

Science is just a way of understanding things, it doesn't ask anything of anyone.

Okay fair point but scientists are just puppets dosing as they are told and yes, I do believe that science hasn't always been the best way forward for man.

A lot of things science have done have destroyed the earth.

(Sorry got a steaming headache so not able to function well, but you get my gist)

eddie wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Science cannot be evil because it isn't an ideology- but it can be destructive.

The written words of some religions though are clearly wicked and command the most heinous acts. Ideologies of course are always the creations of humans (including religion), amd therefore tied to the selfish wills of some people.

Science is just a way of understanding things, it doesn't ask anything of anyone.

Okay fair point but scientists are just puppets dosing as they are told and yes, I do believe that science hasn't always been the best way forward for man.

A lot of things science have done have destroyed the earth.

(Sorry got a steaming headache so not able to function well, but you get my gist)

A lot of things science has been used for have destroyed the earth would be more accurate, and I'd agree. We kill the earth everyday by continuing to eat up fossil fuels and poisoning it with nuclear waste.

That said, without science we'd still be in the dark ages where bacterial infections from bad teeth, diseases like small pox and pure bad hygiene would kill people in huge numbers. It has unquestionably been more a force for good in human history, nearly everything that makes our lives comfortable we have science to thank for.

I get you though, science has allowed man to cause many problems too.

But whereas it is the case science has mostly been a force for good, and still is- the reverse is true for religion.

Eilzel wrote:

eddie wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Science cannot be evil because it isn't an ideology- but it can be destructive.

The written words of some religions though are clearly wicked and command the most heinous acts. Ideologies of course are always the creations of humans (including religion), amd therefore tied to the selfish wills of some people.

Science is just a way of understanding things, it doesn't ask anything of anyone.

Okay fair point but scientists are just puppets dosing as they are told and yes, I do believe that science hasn't always been the best way forward for man.

A lot of things science have done have destroyed the earth.

(Sorry got a steaming headache so not able to function well, but you get my gist)

A lot of things science has been used for have destroyed the earth would be more accurate, and I'd agree. We kill the earth everyday by continuing to eat up fossil fuels and poisoning it with nuclear waste.

That said, without science we'd still be in the dark ages where bacterial infections from bad teeth, diseases like small pox and pure bad hygiene would kill people in huge numbers. It has unquestionably been more a force for good in human history, nearly everything that makes our lives comfortable we have science to thank for.

I get you though, science has allowed man to cause many problems too.

But whereas it is the case science has mostly been a force for good, and still is- the reverse is true for religion.

Good,post les and I agree with you mostly. Have a rep point

Some people, for example the bereaved or the lonely, find lots of comfort in religion though and it has literally "saved them"

Religion seems to be getting a bad press for the evil but it also does a lot of good for local communities and those who,attend church etc

Haha thanks ;-) , yeah I totally get the benefits of religion of course. I'd like to think however the good people do would be done even if they didn't expect divine reward.

Hope the headache clears soon x

Eilzel wrote:Haha thanks ;-) , yeah I totally get the benefits of religion of course. I'd like to think however the good people do would be done even if they didn't expect divine reward.  

Hope the headache clears soon x

Christians are saved by grace not by works so rewards don't matter as long as we have our ticket to heaven . The free gift of salvation .

eddie wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

A lot of things science has been used for have destroyed the earth would be more accurate, and I'd agree. We kill the earth everyday by continuing to eat up fossil fuels and poisoning it with nuclear waste.

That said, without science we'd still be in the dark ages where bacterial infections from bad teeth, diseases like small pox and pure bad hygiene would kill people in huge numbers. It has unquestionably been more a force for good in human history, nearly everything that makes our lives comfortable we have science to thank for.

I get you though, science has allowed man to cause many problems too.

But whereas it is the case science has mostly been a force for good, and still is- the reverse is true for religion.

Good,post les and I agree with you mostly. Have a rep point  

Some people, for example the bereaved or the lonely, find lots of comfort in religion though  and it has literally "saved them"

Religion seems to be getting a bad press for the evil but it also does a lot of good for local communities and those who,attend church etc

We're not members of any church , you know our situation but we do go to occasional services at a particular church and also help out with a weekly kitchen to feed those less fortunate . We are at a barbecue in a few weeks all paid for by the church and anyone is welcome . It's a really great opportunity to show the love of Jesus without taking round the collection box lol .

Eilzel wrote:

eddie wrote:

Okay fair point but scientists are just puppets dosing as they are told and yes, I do believe that science hasn't always been the best way forward for man.

A lot of things science have done have destroyed the earth.

(Sorry got a steaming headache so not able to function well, but you get my gist)

A lot of things science has been used for have destroyed the earth would be more accurate, and I'd agree. We kill the earth everyday by continuing to eat up fossil fuels and poisoning it with nuclear waste.

That said, without science we'd still be in the dark ages where bacterial infections from bad teeth, diseases like small pox and pure bad hygiene would kill people in huge numbers. It has unquestionably been more a force for good in human history, nearly everything that makes our lives comfortable we have science to thank for.

I get you though, science has allowed man to cause many problems too.

But whereas it is the case science has mostly been a force for good, and still is- the reverse is true for religion.

i'm sure the people of hiroshima and nagasaki agree, chernobly , i'm sure all the victims of every chemical weapon agree... I suppose every weapon for that matter, some would argue the very destruction of this planet lies in the hands of science...

actually the dark ages could get rid of bacteria an infections with plants .

didnt do very well with the plague did they?

darknessss wrote:didnt do very well with the plague did they?

lol that;'s very true... they don't seem to cure anything anymore, they stop the symptoms, make people comfortable, i think the pharma companies quickly orked out if they cure you they lose a customer...

NO HF i meant in the dark /middle ages...they didnt do very well contolling plague....

nowadays plague is easily cured...if its caught in time.....

darknessss wrote:NO HF i meant in the dark /middle ages...they didnt do very well contolling plague....

nowadays plague is easily cured...if its caught in time.....

oh I see, yet viruses get stronger and more tricky, if we believe they actually evolve, if we perhaps believe they are just created hybrids of the companies who make the most out of them the whole thing changes dramatically...

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

darknessss wrote:NO HF i meant in the dark /middle ages...they didnt do very well contolling plague....

nowadays plague is easily cured...if its caught in time.....

oh I see, yet viruses get stronger and more tricky, if we believe they actually evolve, if we perhaps believe they are just created hybrids of the companies who make the most out of them the whole thing changes dramatically...

thats just paranoia HF.....viral evolution has ben going on since forever...and demonstrably BEFORE we had the ability to mess about with the genetics of em

a good example is measles.....which evolved directly from rinderpest about 2000 years ago....


bacterial resistance to antibiotics was noted in the 40's and 50's

and there is nothing particularly stunning about that since even when penicillin was first introduced there were known to be a few non affected individual bacteria in any population....but this was thought to be significant only in the lab, since in the case of a person infected with whatever bug it was assumed that their immune system would wipe out any survivors....

mmm...they got that a bit wrong...why...because they didnt recon on the antibiotic a) persisting in the environment and b) that farmers would pour tons of the stuff down livestock....

Eilzel wrote:Haha thanks ;-) , yeah I totally get the benefits of religion of course. I'd like to think however the good people do would be done even if they didn't expect divine reward.  

Hope the headache clears soon x

Thanks x
I'll,get more cranky if it doesn't

eddie wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Haha thanks ;-) , yeah I totally get the benefits of religion of course. I'd like to think however the good people do would be done even if they didn't expect divine reward.  

Hope the headache clears soon x

Thanks x
I'll,get more cranky if it doesn't

MORE carnky....is that possible....


you meed more meat in your diet

darknessss wrote:

eddie wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Haha thanks ;-) , yeah I totally get the benefits of religion of course. I'd like to think however the good people do would be done even if they didn't expect divine reward.  

Hope the headache clears soon x

Thanks x
I'll,get more cranky if it doesn't

MORE carnky....is that possible....


you meed more meat in your diet

I get the right sort of meat on a regular basis

eddie wrote:

darknessss wrote:


MORE carnky....is that possible....


you meed more meat in your diet

I get the right sort of meat on a regular basis

well thats supposed to CURE headaches......

eddie wrote:

darknessss wrote:


MORE carnky....is that possible....


you meed more meat in your diet

I get the right sort of meat on a regular basis

darknessss wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

oh I see, yet viruses get stronger and more tricky, if we believe they actually evolve, if we perhaps believe they are just created hybrids of the companies who make the most out of them the whole thing changes dramatically...

thats just paranoia HF.....viral evolution has ben going on since forever...and demonstrably BEFORE we had the ability to mess about with the genetics of em

a good example is measles.....which evolved directly from rinderpest about 2000 years ago....


bacterial resistance to antibiotics was noted in the 40's and 50's

and there is nothing particularly stunning about that since even when penicillin was first introduced there were known to be a few non affected individual bacteria in any population....but this was thought to be significant only in the lab, since in the case of a person infected with whatever bug it was assumed that their immune system would wipe out any survivors....

mmm...they got that a bit wrong...why...because they didn't recon on the antibiotic a) persisting in the environment and b) that farmers would pour tons of the stuff down livestock....

My dad had a triple bypass in 2004 and the injection sight on his the top of his hand went out of control, they took the plaster too soon and it got infected. You have never seen anything like it , no matter what they did or put on it and he had antibiotics it just get growing and stinking and it was hideous . Even the doctors were baffled . In the end they put a suction thing on it to try and clear the infection and did a skin graft , we thought great that will do it , but within days it started spreading again . I think i mentioned this before that it wasn't clearing up and my dad got so sick of it he walked in a church and put his whole hand and wrist in holy water and it cleared up . Now i know you won't believe this but it did clear up without a doubt .

Dibs ...I dont doubt you for a moment.....all I would say is that I'd have to look at a number of things before I was even prepared to begin to ascribe the healing to "divine intervention"

darknessss wrote:Dibs ...I dont doubt you for a moment.....all I would say is that I'd have to look at a number of things before I was even prepared to begin to ascribe the healing to "divine intervention"

thank you , this was definitely a healing and i honestly believe that it has to do with how we think , if we believe it we receive it and in this case my dad was desperate and his act of faith healed him . Who knows eh i only know it healed up almost instantly ,

lolz you 2 are funny

science and technology did technically kill everyone besides bare hands, technically the pointy stick is science (physics)

ah...now then veya.....we are back to the "guns dont kill people" argument....

science doesnt in and of itself kill anyone

science is merely knowledge (and technology the implementation of that knowledge

and both are entirely neutral....

what matters of course is the USE of those things

THAT requires INTENT...and that is a human thing (so far, what AI will bring is another matter)

guns don't kill people that just make it much more efficient/easy to kill people.
as you are never going to achieve a state where no human ever wants to kill the best we can do it make it harder to actually do.

And animals, even some plants, kill with intent. Life is deadly
the strangler fig, slowly kills it's victim as it uses it as a support to grow upward



and yes I know science is just stuff we know so does not directly kill, technically engineers kill more people that scientists