The SMH thing about non-belief has some interesting terminology:
'The research showed 31 per cent of youths aged 13 to 17 were non-believers - a significant drop from previous generations.'
It's a significant *rise* in non-believers, of course. You can just about squint and get away with that, but then there's ...
'While there were no comparable figures to show the size of the drop of non-believers, anecdotally it was a big decline, she said.'
OK ... now the increasing numbers of atheists is not just a 'drop' it's also a 'decline'. Imagine it was a survey of ethnic mix instead of belief, and there had been a significant increase in the number of 'non whites'. If the editor had characterised that as a 'decline', would he still be the editor this morning?
Also, the questioning is clearly skewed. After inviting Christians to self-identify, it then asks to say if they do charitable work. (I suspect that questionnaire didn't define terms - someone who spent a year teaching poor kids in Africa to read and someone else who seriously thought about putting a dollar in a collecting tin could both say 'yes'). The problem with that approach is neatly spelled out here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yhN1IDLQjo
The survey was carried out by that well known neutral party when it comes to the value of religion the Australian Catholic University. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the poll was *designed* to create the impression that non-believers are selfish.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Dropping Up
Date: 2008-02-01 08:33 am (UTC)'The research showed 31 per cent of youths aged 13 to 17 were non-believers - a significant drop from previous generations.'
It's a significant *rise* in non-believers, of course. You can just
about squint and get away with that, but then there's ...
'While there were no comparable figures to show the size of the drop of non-believers, anecdotally it was a big decline, she said.'
OK ... now the increasing numbers of atheists is not just a 'drop' it's also a 'decline'. Imagine it was a survey of ethnic mix instead of belief, and there had been a significant increase in the number of 'non whites'. If the editor had characterised that as a 'decline', would he still be the editor this morning?
Also, the questioning is clearly skewed. After inviting Christians to self-identify, it then asks to say if they do charitable work. (I suspect that questionnaire didn't define terms - someone who spent a year teaching poor kids in Africa to read and someone else who seriously thought about putting a dollar in a collecting tin could both say 'yes'). The problem with that approach is neatly spelled out here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yhN1IDLQjo
The survey was carried out by that well known neutral party when it comes to the value of religion the Australian Catholic University. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the poll was *designed* to create the impression that non-believers are selfish.