The Irish Catholic

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

I was plastering a wall of a church today and happened to find a recent copy of this paper. Theres been a lot of mentions of Alive! on this forum and although the Irish Catholic is a much better written paper, I found it to be equally full of nonsense. Contained a lot of silly articles including a column by my least favourite journalist Mary Kenny who is perhaps the most hypocritical person in Ireland. This was probably the stupidest thing I read in it. Whats everyone elses opinions on the paper?

MagicMarker

I can't even bring myself to read more than a few words, I honestly couldn't give a toss what she has to say.

Tin Foil Hat

I got this far:-

No surprise, evolution favours faith families

Once again, an academic study has confirmed a theme which has been suggested in previous research: atheists can never be in the majority in most societies, because as a group, they always have fewer children than believers.

Yes dear, but religious belief is not in the genes. It's learned behaviour, and it can be changed.
The rate of change from faith to non-believer is vastly greater than vice verse. Therefore, your argument fails.

starbelgrade

She looks like she could be Podge & Rodge's mother.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

She writes in the magazine that comes with the Independent every saturday and some of the crap she comes out with is unbelievable. She constantly mentions her role in fighting for legalizing contraception and various feminist causes, yet takes the Catholic Church's side on every issue of relevance today and proclaims herself to be a devout Catholic. You can almost smell the hypocrisy off the page.

mehfesto

She can't deny evolution. She's VERY slowly turning more into Mystic Meg every week. It's amazing.

magicbastarder

she had a column last week which was much more positive towards gay adoption than i'd have expected from her.

robindch

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

my least favourite journalist Mary Kenny who is perhaps the most hypocritical person in Ireland.

I think "journalist" is stretching the term, but I'd be inclined to second the general sentiment. Believe it or not, Kenny was, broadly speaking, an anti-catholic, pro-contraception feminist some forty years ago, when contraception was something needed by women of her age at the time. Now that it's no longer useful to her, she's realized the errors of her ways and currently parrots precisely the opposite of the line she produced when it was to her benefit to do so.

Ruminations about Kenny aside, the Irish Catholic is certainly a far less offensive publication and while I'd hesitate to describe it as reliable or useful, it does appear to think of itself as a publication that informs, rather than incites.

aidan24326

Once again, an academic study has confirmed a theme which has been suggested in previous research: atheists can never be in the majority in most societies, because as a group, they always have fewer children than believers.

Well for starters we don't allow our contraceptive choices to be dictated to us by a controlling organisation , maybe that's why non-believers traditionally had fewer children. Catholic Ireland with its 12-children families was the legacy of the Church's influence on contraception in this country.

Aside from that, Mary Kenny is nauseating. She writes with such a smug, sanctimonious air. at least on the few occasions I was foolish enough to actually read her.

sponsoredwalk

Once again, an academic study has confirmed a theme which has been suggested in previous research: atheists can never be in the majority in most societies, because as a group, they always have fewer children than believers.

I'm going to call this "The Petri Dish Argument" or "Argumentum ex Dish Petri".

Pace2008

As well as finding the piece completely pointless, I also think her essentially explicit suggestion that there's some vital human component missing in non-believers pretty offensive, even if if it's nothing new. Her attempt to dichotomise the "real" people, people of faith, and the directionless nihilists through contrasting images of warmth and coldness is ham-fisted and woefully transparent.

I'd say there's deep underlying fear of a changing world in someone like this who feels the need to pen such smug, self-assuring tripe.

It's not as if underpopulation is a pressing global crisis, in any case.

Zillah

She sounds reasonable enough until her mask slips: "the arid and nihilistic creed of denying the Creator".

Atheist=nihilist, apparently.

Doctor DooM

Zillah wrote: »

She sounds reasonable enough until her mask slips: "the arid and nihilistic creed of denying the Creator".

Atheist=nihilist, apparently.

I'm pretty happy with being associated with Flea, actually.

Zombrex

Tin Foil Hat wrote: »

I got this far:-



Yes dear, but religious belief is not in the genes. It's learned behaviour, and it can be changed.
The rate of change from faith to non-believer is vastly greater than vice verse. Therefore, your argument fails.

She shouldn't need evolution to tell her this. Religion, particularly the RCC, have always used the method of out breeding other groups as a way to maintain control.

I have a number of friends who have 10+ uncles and aunts on both sides of their parents because only a few years ago contraception wasn't even legal in Ireland, and is still frowned upon by the church. In our grand parents generation the role of the woman was simply to spend her life producing children.

You couple dogmatic control over sexual practices with dogmatic control over children education and you will gain a large control over society.

PeterIanStaker

I only read the first few lines and I'm fairly sure I lost a few neurons and possibly some grey matter.

chucken1

And so Estonia puts aside its own ''crowns'', as the currency was called, featuring very pretty banknotes

What a condesending twat.

magicbastarder

mehfesto wrote: »

She's VERY slowly turning more into Mystic Meg every week. It's amazing.

i skimmed her column from saturday's paper, which was a defence of wearing fur. which was a classic straw man argument. i couldn't finish it.

gbee

Tin Foil Hat wrote: »

I got this far:-

Me too. :rolleyes:

Galvasean

Doctor DooM wrote: »

I'm pretty happy with being associated with Flea, actually.

F#CKING NIHILISTS!!!

PDN

Tin Foil Hat wrote: »

The rate of change from faith to non-believer is vastly greater than vice verse.

That is a spectacularly incorrect claim. If it were true then the number of believers in the world would be a minus figure since, as is often claimed in this forum, babies are born as atheists.

Therefore, in order for anyone to have faith in God in the first place, they must have changed from non-believer to faith.

So, if there was only one believer in the world, that would indicate that the rate of change from non-believer to faith is greater than vice versa.

Since there are in fact billions of believers in the world, that demonstrates conclusively that the rate of change from non-believer to faith is vastly greater than vice versa.

Still, I admire your blind faith in making such a hopeful, even if staggeringly inaccurate, claim.

CerebralCortex

PDN wrote: »

That is a spectacularly incorrect claim. If it were true then the number of believers in the world would be a minus figure since, as is often claimed in this forum, babies are born as atheists.

Therefore, in order for anyone to have faith in God in the first place, they must have changed from non-believer to faith.

So, if there was only one believer in the world, that would indicate that the rate of change from non-believer to faith is greater than vice versa.

Since there are in fact billions of believers in the world, that demonstrates conclusively that the rate of change from non-believer to faith is vastly greater than vice versa.

Still, I admire your blind faith in making such a hopeful, even if staggeringly inaccurate, claim.

I think he was talking about Ireland PDN, a developed nation. Also I don't think anyone is born atheist in as much as there is anyone born theist, rather we're born with a nasty irrational tendency to see agency as way of explaining the reason for everything that happens.

mikhail

PDN wrote: »

Still, I admire your blind faith in making such a hopeful, even if staggeringly inaccurate, claim.

Oh, please. He's clearly discounting childhood indoctrination. or no, you're trolling.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

as is often claimed in this forum, babies are born as atheists.

That, as we point out every time you trip up on this, is what are termed implicit atheists; ie, people who don't have views upon something that they don't yet know anything about.

Think of this this way -- a few years back, everybody in the world was an implicit a-flying-spaghetti-monsterist. Since Mr Henderson dreamed up his new god, there are now millions of people who are explicit a-flying-spaghetti-monsterists, including presumably, your excellent self. The two positions are quite different.

I realize the distinction might seem small, but do try working on it and you'll figure it out eventually

Dades

I wouldn't call babies any kind of atheist.

They're just babies. Mine are good looking - and other people's are ugly.

keppler

PDN wrote: »

Still, I admire your blind faith in making such a hopeful, even if staggeringly inaccurate, claim.

I know thinking logically is extremely dificult for a theist but please, do try........:rolleyes:
Given that approx only 2.5% of the worlds population are openly atheist I would suggest that it is only reasonable to assume that more people leave religion behind than otherwise take it up (of their own will of course).

Dades

keppler wrote: »

I know thinking logically is extremely dificult for a theist but please, do try........:rolleyes:

Now now... let's not get too spiky.

PDN

keppler wrote: »

I know thinking logically is extremely dificult for a theist but please, do try........:rolleyes:
Given that approx only 2.5% of the worlds population are openly atheist I would suggest that it is only reasonable to assume that more people leave religion behind than otherwise take it up (of their own will of course).

The number of people who are openly atheist today (2.5%) is a much lower percentage than 50 years ago (when 50% of the world's population were nominally atheist). So in your opinion that indicates that more people are leaving religion.

And you argue, complete with rolling eyes, that theists find it difficult to think logically?

PDN

mikhail wrote: »

Oh, please. He's clearly discounting childhood indoctrination.

And of course we all know that none of the 2.5% of the world's population who are openly atheist reached that position through childhood indoctrination, don't we?

vinchick

Now I will admit that I am ignorant as to the general costs of advertising but they don't seem to be doing too bad for themselves, if they sell all the space.

Display Advertisement Rates 2009 / 2010
Full Page..............€5,400
Half Page.............€2,700
Quarter Page.......€1,350
15cmx2................€750
Single column centimetre rate €25
Full colour surcharge 20%
Spot colour surcharge 10%
Agency commission 15%
All prices plus VAT @21%

AhSureTisGrand

PDN wrote: »

The number of people who are openly atheist today (2.5%) is a much lower percentage than 50 years ago (when 50% of the world's population were nominally atheist). So in your opinion that indicates that more people are leaving religion.

And you argue, complete with rolling eyes, that theists find it difficult to think logically?

Seriously what the fudge? 50%? Please give your sources

keppler

PDN wrote: »

The number of people who are openly atheist today (2.5%) is a much lower percentage than 50 years ago (when 50% of the world's population were nominally atheist). So in your opinion that indicates that more people are leaving religion.

And you argue, complete with rolling eyes, that theists find it difficult to think logically?

OK, first of all where are you getting that figure of 50% 50 years ago?......have you been taking McGrath's comics sorry, books as gospel?

The bulk of all religious demographs I have ever looked at shows atheism, agnosticism, secularisation and non religious beliefs on the rise in nearly every developed country in the world, especially in the past twenty years.

Again if you simply just take the sheer number of theists compared to atheists in the world. Then just consider the fact that maybe even 1% of either side could be defecting to one another. You cannot deny the fact that it is highly plausible more theists are leaving than atheists joining.

AhSureTisGrand

Oh lookie the post is gone

Bill2673

PDN wrote: »

The number of people who are openly atheist today (2.5%) is a much lower percentage than 50 years ago (when 50% of the world's population were nominally atheist).

hmmm.....me thinks that nominal 50% includes some unga bungas and the savages in darkest Peru.....

As someone who is nominally, but not openly, atheist (I dig the subtle distinction that allows you compare apples with oranges to make a point) I do wonder why ye folks are getting so worked up about Ms Mary Kenny's articles.....

My line on this, for what its worth is that the likes of herself and senator Ronan Mullen actually do their cause a disservice by simply being absurd.

gcgirl

Dades wrote: »

I wouldn't call babies any kind of atheist.

They're just babies. Mine are good looking - and other people's are ugly.

Nah mines way way better looking than yours :-0

Bill2673

gcgirl wrote: »

Nah mines way way better looking than yours :-0

yah.....my 6 month old won't read the Irish Catholic, she says the sudoku's are crap.

PDN

keppler wrote: »

OK, first of all where are you getting that figure of 50% 50 years ago?

The 50% is a guess (one that I've discussed in conversations with non-Christian historians and sociologists). I don't know of any precise figures since 50 years ago asking people their religion in officially atheist regimes could land you in a Gulag.

So you can dodge the force of my argument by quibbling about whether the 50% should really be 45% or even 30%. However, anyone except a totally dishonest fool will admit that 50 years ago there were larger numbers of people who professed to be atheists than the 2.5% mentioned earlier in this thread. So my point remains valid, that the number of self-designating atheists has fallen over the last 50 years. If you really want to I guess you can dance around that truth by creating a smokescreen over the exact percentage by which it has fallen.

Bill2763 wrote:

I dig the subtle distinction that allows you compare apples with oranges to make a point

Like keppler who, not so subtly, tries to switch the discussion from the percentage of people who are atheists to the percentage of "atheism, agnosticism, secularisation and non religious beliefs" and, not only that, switches the comparison from the world to "nearly every country in the developed world". :pac:

Don't you think you're a wee bit biased in accusing me of comparing apples with oranges and then blithely ignoring the atheist who compares apples with centipedes, bags of sugar and libraries?

Bill2673

PDN wrote: »

Don't you think you're a wee bit biased in accusing me of comparing apples with oranges and then blithely ignoring the atheist who compares apples with centipedes, bags of sugar and libraries?

Yep, biased.

Dades

PDN wrote: »

If you really want to I guess you can dance around that truth by creating a smokescreen over the exact percentage by which it has fallen.

I'll dance!

I won't quibble that tomorrow there will be more new theists than there will atheists, as that is a symptom of population growth (particularly in Second and Third World areas).

What I would suggest is that an adult theist is more likely to become an atheist than vice versa. (As suggested by the graph in this post) When I say adult, I mean a person of sufficient capacity to decide for themselves what they believe (rather than babies and children who are just babies and children afaic). I'm pretty sure that's what was meant in the post you addressed initially.

Would you disagree?

I'm not sure what this proves, only that the last bunch of posts were arguing a lot of misleading guff.

Bill2673

Dades wrote: »

I'll dance!

I won't quibble that tomorrow there will be more new theists than there will atheists, as that is a symptom of population growth (particularly in Second and Third World areas).

What I would suggest is that an adult theist is more likely to become an atheist than vice versa. (As suggested by the graph in this post) When I say adult, I mean a person of sufficient capacity to decide for themselves what they believe (rather than babies and children who are just babies and children afaic).

Would you disagree?

I'm not sure what this proves, only that the bunch of posts were arguing a lot of misleading guff.

You'd probably want to adjust in there for evangelists heading into the third world and offering soup to the poor.....

A developed world versus developing world distinction perhaps.

I'd think that in darkest Africa, there are no atheists. (Just as there are no gay people).

In Ireland on the other hand......(or France or Germany or Spain or Sweden or Australia or Argentina....)

Dades

Bill2673 wrote: »

You'd probably want to adjust in there for evangelists heading into the third world and offering soup to the poor.....

A developed world versus developing world distinction perhaps.

I thought this covered it.

Dades wrote: »

a symptom of population growth (particularly in Second and Third World areas).

Bill2673

Dades wrote: »

I thought this covered it.

I stand corrected and agree with your point.

mehfesto

Bill2673 wrote: »

I'd think that in darkest Africa, there are no atheists. (Just as there are no gay people).

LOL.

Source for this ridiculous claim?

PDN

Bill2673 wrote: »

You'd probably want to adjust in there for evangelists heading into the third world and offering soup to the poor.....

A developed world versus developing world distinction perhaps.

Or, if the figures don't suit you, why stop at adjusting away two thirds of the world's population? Why not adjust it further by arguing that, in Dublin 4 among people who vote Labour, more people over the age of 18 and under the age of 35 switch from theism to atheism than vice versa?

If you try hard enough you can always massage statistics hard enough to create the impression that a minority that constitutes 2.5% of the world's population is really a rip-roaring global phenomenon that's sweeping everyone else away in its wake.

Bill2673

mehfesto wrote: »

LOL.

Source for this ridiculous claim?

That would be my brain, or imagination, whichever you prefer. Certainly didn;t read it anywhere.

Why is it ridiculous?

Actively opting out of religion (as opposed to be being agnostic) is a first world thing.....as people get more educated, more work focussed, more averse to being lectured to, more open about what they believe as individuals.

Am I wrong? Is there a big atheist movement in downtown kinshasa?

Bill2673

PDN wrote: »

Or, if the figures don't suit you, why stop at adjusting away two thirds of the world's population? Why not adjust it further by arguing that, in Dublin 4 among people who vote Labour, more people over the age of 18 and under the age of 35 switch from theism to atheism than vice versa?

If you try hard enough you can always massage statistics hard enough to create the impression that a minority that constitutes 2.5% of the world's population is really a rip-roaring global phenomenon that's sweeping everyone else away in its wake.

i think he/ she has addressed this point: i.e. that at an individual level, a theist is more likely to become atheist than vice versa.....

if you dispute this please tell why.

(If you try hard enough, you can always give the impression that someone is wrong by going off on a rant about some point that they haven't actually made!!!)

PDN

Bill2673 wrote: »

i think he/ she has addressed this point: i.e. that at an individual level, a theist is more likely to become atheist than vice versa.....

if you dispute this please tell why.

I would dispute it, but I think the situation is much more complex than an atheist versus theist thing. And drawing up actual data that measures people's beliefs rather than a sectarian headcount is unlikely.


I personally, as a Christian secularist, would love to see the numbers of theists around the world decrease drastically.

In a world where the ability to communicate globally is on the increase, people are more likely to switch from any ideology that relies on childhood indoctrination to one that requires an adult decision than vice versa.

So, in Ireland, you would expect to find many more Catholics becoming atheists than vice versa. And in China you find many more atheists becoming Christians than vice versa.

The forms of Christianity, for example, that are growing fastest on a global basis are those that require an adult to make a commitment. This is why Evangelicals and Pentecostals have grown so rapidly in the last century. And much of that growth has been conversions of adults who were indoctrinated (either into atheism or a religion) in their childhood.

Most people, of course, are neither counted among the 2.5% of atheists or among the 10% or so of the population that I would estimate as having what I would consider to be a freely chosen Christian belief. Many of the other 87.5% are members of religions because they were born into it and it is seen as their national or cultural identity.

Then you have a large number of people who don't give a sh1t. They aren't atheists, but they certainly aren't Christians either. They may have a vague belief in a god (so could technically be called theists or deists) but they are essentially secular and unreligious. This group of people are probably the fastest growing segment in many developed countries. Many atheists (and Christians who think like me) view this as a positive development in that such a group is healthier for society than religious folks who were indoctrinated into nominal religion in childhood, but neither of us can claim the growth of this sector as some great victory for either atheism or Christianity.

So, I would argue that, over the last 50 years, the number of childhood indoctrinated atheists who have embraced religion almost certainly exceeds the number of childhood indoctrinated religious who have become atheists. So, on a personal level, more atheists have become theists than vice versa.

However, this should be qualified by pointing out that larger numbers have probably switched from nominal atheism or nominal religion to the 'don't give a sh1t' category.

As for people who have made a free adult choice to be an atheist or to be religious, and then subsequently switched, I suspect that such numbers are so small in either direction as to be statistically insignificant.

So the good news is that freethinking is on the increase, that childhood indoctrinated atheists and religious are on the decline, and that most people don't give a sh1t anyway.

The bad news is that once we've exercised our freethinking abilities and made a choice one way or the other, then it's a waste of time trying to change our minds (that applys to both atheist and religious).

smokingman

PDN wrote: »

If you try hard enough you can always massage statistics hard enough to create the impression that a minority that constitutes 2.5% of the world's population is really a rip-roaring global phenomenon that's sweeping everyone else away in its wake.

Consider the official number of gay men and women 50 years ago for a second - who in their right mind would have come out back then without medicine men throwing spears at them. Very little, I'd imagine.

Same goes for your makey-uppy 50% figure for atheists.
Not many would have come out for fear of persecution back then either.

Dades

PDN, I won't pretend to know much anything about those in China now converting to Christianity, other than that live under a regime that "encourages" atheism...

My question is could they (pre-conversion) generally be called atheists, or do many have traditional beliefs in 'spirits' or anything that could be classed as a deity?

Bill2673

But technically, its valid.....in that even if in practice they are believers (in China), technically they are atheist.

Technically I'm an Irish catholic but I am an atheist and have been for a long time.

I also believe I am technically not entitled to leave the church.

So I think there's a distinction there......what people are classified as and what they are.

PDN

Dades wrote: »

PDN, I won't pretend to know much anything about those in China now converting to Christianity, other than that live under a regime that "encourages" atheism...

My question is could they (pre-conversion) generally be called atheists, or do many have traditional beliefs in 'spirits' or anything that could be classed as a deity?

I would think they were no more 'real atheists' than the majority of posters on this board were 'real Christians'.

aidan24326

Pace2008 wrote: »

It's not as if underpopulation is a pressing global crisis, in any case.

No but overpopulation will be soon enough. Still, contraception is bad and it's good to have 10 children.
So sayeth The Lord somebody or other.

PDN wrote: »

That is a spectacularly incorrect claim. If it were true then the number of believers in the world would be a minus figure since, as is often claimed in this forum, babies are born as atheists.

Claimed by who? Surely a baby is born minus any label? A baby is a nothing at all when it comes to matters of god and religion, having no concept of any such thing.

PDN wrote: »

If you try hard enough you can always massage statistics....

That be where you got that ridiculous 50% figure from?