Millennials are leaving religion and not coming back

[rjs330]

I really struggled for many years because of the rise of the Religious Right and their ilk, and after college, I didn't go to church for a LONG time and spent time exploring other faiths as I've always been a very spiritual person. It was only after I found out that not every Christian group is rigid, fundamentalist, and misogynistic that I seriously considered going back to church. While I never rejected Jesus, I had no plans of rejoining institutional Christianity.

When I got to the point of reading about Wesleyan faith and the Methodist movement, I was in love because Wesley seemed to put to words how I had been thinking concerning and emphasis on God's grace and love vs. the angry father god dangling his much-abused children over a fiery pit with threats of fire and torture if not strictly obedient, and even worse if you had the misfortune of being born biologically female or even of a race descended from Ham.

The Christian Right is worse than ever now, but it is the gift of the Holy Spirit that can keep us secure in his love even in the midst of all the hatefulness.

The right isn't mysoginistic in the least. And it's a rejection of scripture to believe that God's grace negates God's judgement. It's a rejection of Jesus teachings. That being said, I too grew up in a very legalistic Christianity. I'm no longer that way. I have learned to lean on the truth of the word, which is not legalistic. But nor is it permissive. I dont walk around worrying about if I happen to sin I have suddenly been rejected by God and will be punished severely including losing my salvation. No I am secure in my faith in Christ and the grace he provided to me. It's not a faith in me, but a faith in Christ. But I do also know that if I choose to continue to sin and walk in sin I have rejected his grace and his purpose for me.

 

[durangodawood]

..... it isn't appropriate as a measure of actual sentiment.

Why not?

 

[Al Touthentop]

Why not?

Because it doesn't measure the whole. For the same reason we don't conduct our voting this way, we shouldn't assume that whatever was concluded as the result of some study is the actual sentiment of the whole population.

It's self-evidently inappropriate.

 

[durangodawood]

Because it doesn't measure the whole. For the same reason we don't conduct our voting this way, we shouldn't assume that whatever was concluded as the result of some study is the actual sentiment of the whole population.

It's self-evidently inappropriate.

If its properly randomized, a survey does measure the whole.
The question is: how well?
The answer is: the margin of error.

A few percent margin of error is fine for gauging general opinions for journalistic purposes..
But its not acceptable for elections, which demand extreme precision.

 

[Al Touthentop]

If its properly randomized, a survey does measure the whole.

By definition, it does not. It tries to correct for possible variations in different people but since every opinion is individual, there's no possible way to apply this to the whole.

The question is: how well?
The answer is: the margin of error.

Which is truly immeasurable. Though Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is applied to physics, I believe it also applies here. Besides which, any study like this is a momentary snapshot. If this sort of study were remotely accurate, Hillary Clinton would be President

 

[durangodawood]

By definition, it does not. It tries to correct for possible variations in different people but since every opinion is individual, there's no possible way to apply this to the whole.


Which is truly immeasurable. Though Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is applied to physics, I believe it also applies here. Besides which, any study like this is a momentary snapshot. If this sort of study were remotely accurate, Hillary Clinton would be President

Actually, any sample has a statistic relation to the whole.... by definition. The larger the sample and the better the randomization, the more reliable the relation.

And then there's the matter of how you pose the question....

I'm pretty sure Trumps victory was within the declared margin of error of the polls. AND final vote count shows voters actually did prefer Hil overall, which matches the pre-election polls if I recall.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Actually, any sample has a statistic relation to the whole.... by definition. The larger the sample and the better the randomization, the more reliable the relation.

That relation is assumed as is the truthfulness of the respondents.

 

[durangodawood]

That relation is assumed as is the truthfulness of the respondents.

Yeah but that applies exactly the same if you polled every single individual in the entire group rather than a representative sample.

So this objection of yours is not about the statistics or representative sampling at all.

 

[dzheremi]

So because people can lie and pollsters don't ask literally every single person in a given generation, we shouldn't trust statistics?

I don't think statistics work the way you think they do, Al Touthentop.