Non-Religious Population, Will it Increase or Decrease in the Future?

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I honestly don't understand why (two now) folks are saying this, or the likes to those posts.   He and I have been facebook buddies for going on a decade now.  We both enjoy arguing religion and politics and stuff.  We both try hard to keep things civil and genuine, while not pulling any punches.  I learned a good habit from him - for every contentious political post, he posts a picture of a cute baby animal. 

When some idiot burned a gay pride flag on the hood of his truck, a reporter did a small piece on the event - he was a total class act in the interview.  I showed my children the interview, presenting it as an admirable example of maturity after someone does something bad to you.

I found out about the church's policy change on baptizing kids in SSM households from him, when I saw his posted resignation letter.  I told him he was still ok in my book.   

Online buddies with relationships based on arguing and debating I guess aren't all that common.  Maybe help me out here - assuming you folks have friends from the opposite sides of major fences, how do you go about speaking your mind without coming across as "having disdain", thinking you're "much better and righteous", or "being condescendingly pretentious and patronizing"?

Or are there just raw spots y'all don't cover with buddies, because it's too sensitive and it just wouldn't go well?

 

I have several friends like this, specifically ones who were on the other side of the ssm debate and who were directly impacted by my position opposing their rights. 

I continue to follow the current issues surrounding it, and there's no reasonable argument that a queer individual is now in an advantageous political position. Especially trans folks continue to be victims of violent crimes at higher rates, and there is currently the continual threat that their civil liberties will be subverted.

I thought I had good relationships with my openly queer friends, but I was struck by the change after I conceded my failed political position. When I admitted I had been wrong and apologized, the trust and intimacy increased much more. There had always been a barrier before, a lower level of safety in friendship with me. That deficiency slowly shrunk after I began to support their rights.

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I honestly don't understand why (two now) folks are saying this, or the likes to those posts.   He and I have been facebook buddies for going on a decade now.  We both enjoy arguing religion and politics and stuff.  We both try hard to keep things civil and genuine, while not pulling any punches.  I learned a good habit from him - for every contentious political post, he posts a picture of a cute baby animal. 

When some idiot burned a gay pride flag on the hood of his truck, a reporter did a small piece on the event - he was a total class act in the interview.  I showed my children the interview, presenting it as an admirable example of maturity after someone does something bad to you.

I found out about the church's policy change on baptizing kids in SSM households from him, when I saw his posted resignation letter.  I told him he was still ok in my book.   

Online buddies with relationships based on arguing and debating I guess aren't all that common.  Maybe help me out here - assuming you folks have friends from the opposite sides of major fences, how do you go about speaking your mind without coming across as "having disdain", thinking you're "much better and righteous", or "being condescendingly pretentious and patronizing"?

Or are there just raw spots y'all don't cover with buddies, because it's too sensitive and it just wouldn't go well?

 

I think what you are saying would go over a little better here if you referred to your facebook "buddy" as an enemy, someone on the other side of some issues you favor which he opposes, while you maintain a friendly demeanor with him.  Treating your enemy as a friend, an enemy because you are opposed on some issues, rather than allies as friends are usually considered to be.

That's what I see from your statements and I think that you having that kind of relationship with him is commendable, much better than having violent or hateful feelings toward him.  Being able to share your honest thoughts and feelings with each other, while still being civil with each other, even though you both are on opposite sides of some issues, is the best way I can imagine for enemies to be.  And it wouldn't surprise me if you told me you pray for him, too, hoping our Father in heaven will be able to somehow teach him why it is better to be on your side of the issues, which is the side our Father is on, rather than asking our Father to help you to be more like your enemy is.

[Thinking]

15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Secular people don't reproduce.

Really? Zero?

[Ahab]

27 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I have several friends like this, specifically ones who were on the other side of the ssm debate and who were directly impacted by my position opposing their rights. 

I continue to follow the current issues surrounding it, and there's no reasonable argument that a queer individual is now in an advantageous political position. Especially trans folks continue to be victims of violent crimes at higher rates, and there is currently the continual threat that their civil liberties will be subverted.

I thought I had good relationships with my openly queer friends, but I was struck by the change after I conceded my failed political position. When I admitted I had been wrong and apologized, the trust and intimacy increased much more. There had always been a barrier before, a lower level of safety in friendship with me. That deficiency slowly shrunk after I began to support their rights.

Sounds to me like you became friends to your former enemies, with you moving to the side you formerly opposed while joining them on their side.  When you said or admitted that you had been wrong and apologized for being on the side that was opposed to their views, I think they probably took that as a move to their side and a denunciation of the side you had been on.  I wonder why you did that, and what you gained from it, and what you lost as a result.  What for example did you oppose before that you are in favor of now?

[Jake Starkey]

If the trend to secularization continues, then obviously the population will increase for non-religious individuals.

[Ahab]

15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

This is true, and it means that the irreligious folk die out of their own accord.  Secular people don't reproduce.  So, even if secularism is the wave of the future, it is also a dead end.  It is the religious people who form families and have children.

I think you're either being funny or by "religious people" you're referring to the religious people like us who are sealed together as husband and wife by the power of the priesthood of God.  Only "we" will be the ones who reproduce when this world comes to an end.

[Meadowchik]

6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Sounds to me like you became friends to your former enemies, with you moving to the side you formerly opposed while joining them on their side.  When you said or admitted that you had been wrong and apologized for being on the side that was opposed to their views, I think they probably took that as a move to their side and a denunciation of the side you had been on.  I wonder why you did that, and what you gained from it, and what you lost as a result.  What for example did you oppose before that you are in favor of now?

I did that after years and years of prayerful thought and compassionate listening. I never felt peaceful Christlike assurance in opposing same-sex marriage. 

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

I did that after years and years of prayerful thought and compassionate listening. I never felt peaceful Christlike assurance in opposing same-sex marriage. 

 You mean you never felt same sex marriage was wrong?  I do.  That makes us enemies, on that point.  On that point, we are opposed to each other.  I say it is bad and evil and wrong and you, supposedly, feel it is good and okay.

I hope we can still be civil with each other, though.  And don't be surprised if I want you to change your mind and the side you are on, maybe even sometimes trying to persuade you a little bit.

[Meadowchik]

18 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

If the trend to secularization continues, then obviously the population will increase for non-religious individuals.

Not necessarily. If, for example, lower fertility rates are associated more with secularisation, then religious populations may grow more in comparison. The common interest of religious subgroups to be mutually protected by secularisation could be the foundation that supports simultaneous growth of both.

That said, secularisation is relatively new as a majority tendency in many countries. I think we're approaching unchartered territory in some respects. And the impact might become less predictable with successive generations. 

Edited December 3, 2019 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

 You mean you never felt same sex marriage was wrong?  I do.  That makes us enemies, on that point.  On that point, we are opposed to each other.  I say it is bad and evil and wrong and you, supposedly, feel it is good and okay.

I hope we can still be civil with each other, though.  And don't be surprised if I want you to change your mind and the side you are on, maybe even sometimes trying to persuade you a little bit.

I mean that although my bias was to oppose it, I never felt Christlike peace doing so. Yet, there was most definitely the pure love of Christ when I embraced an old friend and his husband, upon meeting after several years of absence, and when I could wholeheartedly be happy for their happiness.

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I mean that although my bias was to oppose it, I never felt Christlike peace doing so. Yet, there was most definitely the pure love of Christ when I embraced an old friend and his husband, upon meeting after several years of absence, and when I could wholeheartedly be happy for their happiness.

We're supposed to love everybody, but to hate all forms of sin.  Everybody is worthy of love, but loving someone doesn't mean we should condone something they do which is evil. So I can understand how you can righteously love your friend and his "husband".  I just disagree that they are in a good relationship, or the kind of relationship they should be in with each other.  Friendship is wonderful., in and of itself, but we can't be friends to people who are opposed to our views or our way of life.  That makes them our enemies, and yet we should still love them and want what is best for them... all good things, and nothing that is evil.  

Sounds to me like maybe you don't have a testimony from God, an assurance from God, to assure you that same sex sexual relations is evil rather than good.  It doesn't usually feel good to be opposed to something, so feeling Christlike peace for something we are opposed to is not something I would expect to feel.  It doesn't feel peaceful to feel opposed to something. Sin is supposed to upset us and make us feel uncomfortable.  And yet we are still supposed to love everyone, even when the people we love choose to commit a sin.

[MustardSeed]

22 minutes ago, Ahab said:

We're supposed to love everybody, but to hate all forms of sin.  Everybody is worthy of love, but loving someone doesn't mean we should condone something they do which is evil. So I can understand how you can righteously love your friend and his "husband".  I just disagree that they are in a good relationship, or the kind of relationship they should be in with each other.  Friendship is wonderful., in and of itself, but we can't be friends to people who are opposed to our views or our way of life.  That makes them our enemies, and yet we should still love them and want what is best for them... all good things, and nothing that is evil.  

Sounds to me like maybe you don't have a testimony from God, an assurance from God, to assure you that same sex sexual relations is evil rather than good.  It doesn't usually feel good to be opposed to something, so feeling Christlike peace for something we are opposed to is not something I would expect to feel.  It doesn't feel peaceful to feel opposed to something. Sin is supposed to upset us and make us feel uncomfortable.  And yet we are still supposed to love everyone, even when the people we love choose to commit a sin.

I disagree with the concept of seeing someone who has opposing opinions as an enemy. 

 

[Stargazer]

This thought of Nones not reproducing is very funny!  Of course they reproduce! They just do less of it.  Over the short haul they can increase by conversion, but over the long haul they will likely be outbred by the believers. 

Here in the UK, the overall birth rate is below sustainable levels.  The total fertility rate among the unbelievers is the reason for that, because the Nones are in the majority, but the rate among the religious (especially those of a particular religion), is at super-replacement levels.  Given that there are far more Muslims than LDS here, if things continue unchanged along this path this will be a majority Muslim country.  Similar pathways exist in France and Germany.  This means that eventually the Nones will be outnumbered.

If you don't believe it, just take a look at two numbers from the UK government (ref: Births in England and Wales 2017):

• In 2017, the total fertility rate (TFR) declined for the fifth consecutive year to 1.76 children per woman, from 1.81 in 2016. 
  • Comment: replacement fertility rate is about 2.1, so the UK is on the bad side of natural population maintenance.
• 28.4% of live births in 2017 were to mothers born outside the UK, following a gradual rise from 11.6% in 1990. 
  • Comment: One guess as to the religious orientation of these mothers.  
  • Comment 2: note that according to stats, Muslim women in the UK have a fertility rate of about 3.0. It is projected that this will decrease over time to around 2.5 while non-Muslim fertility will remain at about 1.8 -- below replacement (ref: Will Britain have a Muslim majority by 2050?)  <== the answer to that, by the way, is not that soon.

Note that I am not objecting to any of this.  It is what it is.  I like my species!  I have the conviction that the more of us, the better, without regard to race, ethnic origin or creed.  The commandment to replenish and multiply is most certainly still in force, regardless of one's religion.  If Muslims (or any other minority group) outbreed the general population, then they will eventually predominate, and I am OK with this.  It's all very Darwinian, isn't it?  For the sake of you evolutionists out there, this would kind of prove the evolutionary advantage of Islam, wouldn't it?  Regardless of whether Allah exists or not, in fact. 

If this trend continues worldwide, then in about 150-200 years Islam will be the world religion, with other faiths eking out pathetically small niches -- and possibly paying Jizya (the tax on non-Muslims living in a Muslim state).  But I think some other things will happen instead, and this won't be the case.

[Ahab]

13 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I disagree with the concept of seeing someone who has opposing opinions as an enemy. 

 

Then we're not on the same side of this issue, are we.  We are opposed to each other, on this issue.  So I would say that makes us enemies, on this issue.  I wouldn't call us enemies if we agreed on this issue, though.  I would then say we are allies, on this issue, if that's what we were.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

If Christianity continues or accelerates it's downward slide in demographic adherence, we'll eventually find ourselves in the minority.  Cultural power and influence will shift.  Minority will become majority, majority will become minority.   I'm thinking if this happens, the Christians will hear quite a bit from folks that sound like Nehor/California Boy/Mustard Seed/Tacenda.  No matter what our motives or language, there'll be some enmity and bitterness and calling foul.  

Probably lots and lots of that. Including blaming us for deserving it by the things we say.  They won't be twisting the knife because they're bad or unfair, they're twisting the knife because we made them want to, because we were pretentiously moralizing [or any of the insults I've gathered in this thread].

It is not an insult. It is a description of what you said you did. Assuming it happened. I wonder if the episode was not exaggerated or made up to try to establish a point. I am seriously trying to imagine a grown man inviting another grown man to come watch My Little Pony followed by a lecture from one to the other about fairness. If I got such an invitation I would be creeped out and wonder if this was some kind of weird fetish thing. Then passing the scepter of cultural majority over as if you were bequeathing it to an heir? It sounds ludicrous.

Also, those are not my thoughts. As I said those are what I would expect would be the reaction to your sanctimony. It would be my natural reaction if someone pulled an analogous patronizing “teaching moment” like that on me. People hate being manipulated. My ability to extrapolate what will happen is called empathy. It can be practiced towards those you do not agree with. I highly recommend the practice.

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I find it a fascinating study across years.  Yesterday's hollerers for tolerance and equality, are today's people wanting to twist the knife of majority oppression, grinding down the defeated foe, getting revenge for all injustices real or imagined.

Most people learned this in the playground in elementary school. It is prevalent in popular culture and entertainment throughout the ages. It is just how humans work. Acting like it is odd and fascinating is weird. If someone is oppressed and later has the chance to oppress their oppressor most will. Why do you find this surprising?

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

And yeah, I've spent most of my adult life in the majority, having the power of law behind me, justifying and explaining what the yelling complainers are yelling and complaining about.  Worried that a flip in power might result in Nehor's feelings expressed in public policy and law.

Not my feelings. What I expect others to feel. There is a difference. I am not justifying the reaction either. I am just expecting it. If I did what you described to one of my gay friends I would expect them to never talk to me again and, if I brought my faith up, expect them to despise that faith.

As to those feelings becoming general, yeah, it would be concerning but it would not be unexpected. I would argue that many of those who are falling into a minority deserve what is coming. Does not justify it but Isaiah makes it clear that God uses the wicked to punish the wicked.

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I'm no historian, but didn't the Catholics surround themselves with strong walls and sturdy gates, and have military forces and stuff during the Dark ages?  I bet a study of Christianity when it's a minority surrounded, would be a good exercise in exploring Smac's question.  I bet we'd find plenty of examples of Nehor's opinion expressed throughout the history books.

Like here:  Fox's Book of Martyrs

You are arguing that Catholics were an oppressed minority generally at the time when they had military forces and strong cities? Really? Also, that book of martyrs is Protestant martyrs who generally died at the hands of other Christians. If you want to know what being an oppressed Christian minority is like you do not have to go to the history books. Find the small Christian groups in Pakistan and China. Listen to their stories. Talk to those who lived in occupied Europe before the wall fell. It is very sobering to hear those stories.

It is a life of constant trepidation because everything you have can be taken from you in a moment with no recourse. Gay people still have some of that fear in the United States but it is even more intense in other nations where one denouncement usually means ostracism, imprisonment, or death (similar to the Christians in some nations actually).

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

Really? Zero?

They are basically asexual. It is known.

[The Nehor]

15 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

This thought of Nones not reproducing is very funny!  Of course they reproduce! They just do less of it.  Over the short haul they can increase by conversion, but over the long haul they will likely be outbred by the believers. 

Here in the UK, the overall birth rate is below sustainable levels.  The total fertility rate among the unbelievers is the reason for that, because the Nones are in the majority, but the rate among the religious (especially those of a particular religion), is at super-replacement levels.  Given that there are far more Muslims than LDS here, if things continue unchanged along this path this will be a majority Muslim country.  Similar pathways exist in France and Germany.  This means that eventually the Nones will be outnumbered.

If you don't believe it, just take a look at two numbers from the UK government (ref: Births in England and Wales 2017😞

• In 2017, the total fertility rate (TFR) declined for the fifth consecutive year to 1.76 children per woman, from 1.81 in 2016. 
  • Comment: replacement fertility rate is about 2.1, so the UK is on the bad side of natural population maintenance.
• 28.4% of live births in 2017 were to mothers born outside the UK, following a gradual rise from 11.6% in 1990. 
  • Comment: One guess as to the religious orientation of these mothers.  
  • Comment 2: note that according to stats, Muslim women in the UK have a fertility rate of about 3.0. It is projected that this will decrease over time to around 2.5 while non-Muslim fertility will remain at about 1.8 -- below replacement (ref: Will Britain have a Muslim majority by 2050?)  <== the answer to that, by the way, is not that soon.

Note that I am not objecting to any of this.  It is what it is.  I like my species!  I have the conviction that the more of us, the better, without regard to race, ethnic origin or creed.  The commandment to replenish and multiply is most certainly still in force, regardless of one's religion.  If Muslims (or any other minority group) outbreed the general population, then they will eventually predominate, and I am OK with this.  It's all very Darwinian, isn't it?  For the sake of you evolutionists out there, this would kind of prove the evolutionary advantage of Islam, wouldn't it?  Regardless of whether Allah exists or not, in fact. 

If this trend continues worldwide, then in about 150-200 years Islam will be the world religion, with other faiths eking out pathetically small niches -- and possibly paying Jizya (the tax on non-Muslims living in a Muslim state).  But I think some other things will happen instead, and this won't be the case.

Can always count on you for fear mongering demographics.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

I think what you are saying would go over a little better here if you referred to your facebook "buddy" as an enemy, someone on the other side of some issues you favor which he opposes, while you maintain a friendly demeanor with him.  Treating your enemy as a friend, an enemy because you are opposed on some issues, rather than allies as friends are usually considered to be.

That's what I see from your statements and I think that you having that kind of relationship with him is commendable, much better than having violent or hateful feelings toward him.  Being able to share your honest thoughts and feelings with each other, while still being civil with each other, even though you both are on opposite sides of some issues, is the best way I can imagine for enemies to be.  And it wouldn't surprise me if you told me you pray for him, too, hoping our Father in heaven will be able to somehow teach him why it is better to be on your side of the issues, which is the side our Father is on, rather than asking our Father to help you to be more like your enemy is.

Yes, that would definitely make it go over better. No question.

[Stargazer]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Can always count on you for fear mongering demographics.

No, you cannot. I am not fear-mongering. Did you check the referenced sources? These numbers are real.  Trends might change over time -- probably will change, in fact. But the way it looks right now, Europe will be majority Muslim over some hard-to-predict period of time.  And so what?  If it is to be, then far out. Let it happen.

What's to fear, anyway?  Do you fear Muslims?  Are you an Islamophobe?  Sounds like it.

See? I can throw gratuitous insults out there, too.

If you read what I wrote, which it appears you did not, I said I was OK with the apparent trend, if that's the way it was going to go.  Is that fear-mongering?  You drink and drive, you may die quicker than if you did not. Is that fear-mongering?  If you graduate from college with a degree in an in-demand subject area, you will likely make more in your life than if you drop out of high school. Is that fear-mongering?

 

 

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

No, you cannot. I am not fear-mongering. Did you check the referenced sources? These numbers are real.  Trends might change over time -- probably will change, in fact. But the way it looks right now, Europe will be majority Muslim over some hard-to-predict period of time.  And so what?  If it is to be, then far out. Let it happen.

What's to fear, anyway?  Do you fear Muslims?  Are you an Islamophobe?  Sounds like it.

See? I can throw gratuitous insults out there, too.

If you read what I wrote, which it appears you did not, I said I was OK with the apparent trend, if that's the way it was going to go.  Is that fear-mongering?  You drink and drive, you may die quicker than if you did not. Is that fear-mongering?  If you graduate from college with a degree in an in-demand subject area, you will likely make more in your life than if you drop out of high school. Is that fear-mongering?

 

 

fear mongering: the action of deliberately arousing public fear or alarm about a particular issue.

monger: to sell, hawk, or advertise

 

 

I got to tell you, I'm not very impressed by how you are fear-mongering those statistics.  It seems like your heart really isn't in to it,  much.  But I suppose you are at least getting the word out about that at least a little bit.

 

[Jake Starkey]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

I disagree with the concept of seeing someone who has opposing opinions as an enemy. 

 

Yet Apostle Oaks called the opponents of LDS marriage as 'enemies' or 'adversaries.'  I need to look up the cite for that statement.

That is certainly fear mongering.

Edited December 3, 2019 by Jake Starkey

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

Yet Apostle Oaks called the opponents of LDS marriage as 'enemies' or 'adversaries.'  I need to look up the cite for that statement.

Meh. Why bother. It’s so much easier to throw shade or quote somebody out of context when you don’t provide a reference. 

[Stargazer]

1 minute ago, Ahab said:

fear mongering: the action of deliberately arousing public fear or alarm about a particular issue.

monger: to sell, hawk, or advertise

I was just raising attention to what I thought was an interesting set of facts.  And if Christ is not the Son of God, and Christianity is just a way-station along the road to Islam (which is a teaching of Islam, I believe), then eventually the entire world will be Muslim.  If that distresses some people (looking at you, @The Nehor), I'm sorry! Please believe me I am not trying to arouse fear!  Nor am I selling anything.  The trend simply suggests that there is a possibility that Europe will become majority Muslim within a few hundred years. And there is no reason for alarm if this is the case.  Once upon a time, Europe was 99.9% pagan. Then it became 99.9% Christian.  And perhaps it will eventually be 99.9% Muslim.  And like I said, I'm OK with that, if that's the way it goes down.

Christ being the Son of God, and the Savior of the World, however, that's not going to happen.  Things will work out differently from the trend mentioned above.

1 minute ago, Ahab said:

 

I got to tell you, I'm not very impressed by how you are fear-mongering those statistics.  It seems like your heart really isn't in to it,  much.  But I suppose you are at least getting the word out about that at least a little bit.

 

I will try to improve, then.  Be afraid! Be very afraid!

 

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

We're supposed to love everybody, but to hate all forms of sin.  Everybody is worthy of love, but loving someone doesn't mean we should condone something they do which is evil. So I can understand how you can righteously love your friend and his "husband".  I just disagree that they are in a good relationship, or the kind of relationship they should be in with each other.  Friendship is wonderful., in and of itself, but we can't be friends to people who are opposed to our views or our way of life.  That makes them our enemies, and yet we should still love them and want what is best for them... all good things, and nothing that is evil.  

Sounds to me like maybe you don't have a testimony from God, an assurance from God, to assure you that same sex sexual relations is evil rather than good.  It doesn't usually feel good to be opposed to something, so feeling Christlike peace for something we are opposed to is not something I would expect to feel.  It doesn't feel peaceful to feel opposed to something. Sin is supposed to upset us and make us feel uncomfortable.  And yet we are still supposed to love everyone, even when the people we love choose to commit a sin.

Well the crux is that I forced myself to consider the fruits of loving gay relationships. Whatever God's ultimate plan, those fruits result precisely the way love itself is described in scripture. So, I can only conclude that divine good results from divine love. 

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

This thought of Nones not reproducing is very funny!  Of course they reproduce! They just do less of it.  Over the short haul they can increase by conversion, but over the long haul they will likely be outbred by the believers. 

Here in the UK, the overall birth rate is below sustainable levels.  The total fertility rate among the unbelievers is the reason for that, because the Nones are in the majority, but the rate among the religious (especially those of a particular religion), is at super-replacement levels.  Given that there are far more Muslims than LDS here, if things continue unchanged along this path this will be a majority Muslim country.  Similar pathways exist in France and Germany.  This means that eventually the Nones will be outnumbered.

If you don't believe it, just take a look at two numbers from the UK government (ref: Births in England and Wales 2017😞

• In 2017, the total fertility rate (TFR) declined for the fifth consecutive year to 1.76 children per woman, from 1.81 in 2016. 
  • Comment: replacement fertility rate is about 2.1, so the UK is on the bad side of natural population maintenance.
• 28.4% of live births in 2017 were to mothers born outside the UK, following a gradual rise from 11.6% in 1990. 
  • Comment: One guess as to the religious orientation of these mothers.  
  • Comment 2: note that according to stats, Muslim women in the UK have a fertility rate of about 3.0. It is projected that this will decrease over time to around 2.5 while non-Muslim fertility will remain at about 1.8 -- below replacement (ref: Will Britain have a Muslim majority by 2050?)  <== the answer to that, by the way, is not that soon.

Note that I am not objecting to any of this.  It is what it is.  I like my species!  I have the conviction that the more of us, the better, without regard to race, ethnic origin or creed.  The commandment to replenish and multiply is most certainly still in force, regardless of one's religion.  If Muslims (or any other minority group) outbreed the general population, then they will eventually predominate, and I am OK with this.  It's all very Darwinian, isn't it?  For the sake of you evolutionists out there, this would kind of prove the evolutionary advantage of Islam, wouldn't it?  Regardless of whether Allah exists or not, in fact. 

If this trend continues worldwide, then in about 150-200 years Islam will be the world religion, with other faiths eking out pathetically small niches -- and possibly paying Jizya (the tax on non-Muslims living in a Muslim state).  But I think some other things will happen instead, and this won't be the case.

Secularisation may also provide a safe haven for Muslims--just like for Christians--to take leave of their religious traditions. People gravitate to perceived safety. 

There's many other variables though. Pandemics, for example, are inevitable. Pollution and resource scarcity can create more intense changes.