Source?

Uh.. me.

And you know all the British to tell 98% of them are crazy. Right so, convinces me on how to look at your sanity. Bye.

The British like surveys as much as anyone else on this planet. This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at November 28, 2016 5:09 AM MST

They?

Oops, the British... Correcting it now... *you may punish me* This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at November 28, 2016 8:59 AM MST

not according to  my  survey    :-D

I'd like to have a look at your survey then, including the method and frame used conducting it. Thank you. This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at November 28, 2016 8:59 AM MST

stood on a corner in the uk   for and hour and asked  10  people  ..  they all  told be  to $h%t  in a bag and punch  it  .    :-D 

Might have been wrong approach. You might have gotten the same result any other place on Earth if using the same settings and approach. This isn't enough data for such major conclusion you presented above. Hmm.

i was naked at the time too  .. so  ....  maybe that affected  it  .   ;-)

Like said, the approach is something to have in mind when conducting a survey. Mhmm.

You can't conclude that last statement you make based on the statistics presented. Just because people think religion is not very important (and compared to what?) isn't the same as saying they aren't a member of a religion.

wasn't a conclusion  . was a factual  statement  from the link  under that   one  on google  .  just  figured  i'd include it  as a bonus  . .
 here's the link.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/23/no-religion-outnumber-christians-england-wales-study

This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at November 28, 2016 12:30 AM MST

Doesn't make it any more true. It's a jump conclusion made on that figure alone. It's simply not given in that question, or those results presented here. But that won't be the first time results from a survey have been misinterpreted. Ask the same population used if they believe there is a God, and you will likely get a whole different result. Not very important isn't the same as not important at all. Simple as that. This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at November 28, 2016 12:33 AM MST

as i said . it was an add on .   separate  the 2  .   its not a   conclusion from the other  is  was an added  post script .

google this  "  more religious prople in the usa than uk ? "    see  for yourself  the loads of  separate  results saying the same thing   .  This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at November 28, 2016 12:56 AM MST

As I "said": their conclusion (description of the results showed) on that figure.

Your conclusion based on the table was, that there are more religious people in the US than in the UK. You cannot make such conclusion either, not based on the figure alone. You might be right, and you can make such hypotheses, but you cannot make such conclusion/statement based on the results presented. 

IT WASNT BASED ON THAT TABLE  . NOR WAS IT A CONCLUSION  . IT WAS  THE TITLE  OF THE NEXT SEPERATE  WEBSITE LISTED   Underneath THAT ONE  ON   A GOOGLE  SEARCH  PAGE  !!! 
google this  "  more religious people in the usa than uk ? "    see  for yourself  the loads of   results saying the same thing   . try to  separate the  websites tho .
;-) This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at November 28, 2016 1:00 AM MST

You did use this figure to accompanying your statement, no? I am not questioning what you say might be wrong. I am telling you that the figure used isn't showing what you say, or what the article has chosen as description. It is simply not given as a fact based on the figure alone. End of discussion from my side, we have reached the point of circular arguing. Have a lovely day/night.