Godless students

kuro_man

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/students-rate-looking-good-as-more-important-than-religion-603483.html

some interesting data...

Also...

One in five students responded that they were Atheists.

..with a capital A, I wonder did Mr. Nugent lobby for this.

Sarky

Not terribly surprised, the most godless fun I've ever had has been in college. Was invited to an orgy at my last graduation. Pity my back was f*cked at the time. Ah well.

Amirani

kuro_man wrote: »

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/students-rate-looking-good-as-more-important-than-religion-603483.html

some interesting data...

Also...



..with a capital A, I wonder did Mr. Nugent lobby for this.

"The survey found that 2.2% of students are Church of Ireland/Protestant, compared to 2011 census figures of 2.81% in the general population.

Of the Catholic students surveyed, 61.5% said ‘Yes’ when asked if they take communion"

What's your point?

AlanS181824

Sarky wrote: »

Not terribly surprised, the most godless fun I've ever had has been in college. Was invited to an orgy at my last graduation. Pity my back was f*cked at the time. Ah well.

I'm going into TY in a few days and pretty much everyone bar a few are all atheists in my class. Most students have the idea that they're are just some people who can't handle (too stupid) the fact that there's no God. To each their own I think.

HurtLocker

These people who claim to be Catholic 57% yet 83% of people want abortion in Ireland. After all the religion thats shoved down out throats a huge chunk of proclaimed "Catholics" have no idea what saying "I am a Catholic" actually means.

Dades

Irish Examiner wrote:

Looking good is more important than religion to Irish college students, according to a recent survey.

In other breaking news, the earth revolves around the sun...

The fact that people insist on using the grossly unrepresentative census results in such comparisons brings out the rage in me.

kylith

I think that those figures nicely demonstrate the effect of the Mammy on the census; when they're away from home the number of Catholics drops dramatically.

Corkfeen

kylith wrote: »

I think that those figures nicely demonstrate the effect of the Mammy on the census; when they're away from home the number of Catholics drops dramatically.

I think my mother would have preferred me to look respectable(good) in college over being Catholic and she is a Catholic. The priorities of an Irish mammy are complex.

Penn

Of the Catholic students surveyed, 61.5% said ‘Yes’ when asked if they take communion, only 32.2% believe that it is the body and blood of Christ.

:rolleyes:

Morbert

NiallSparky wrote: »

What's your point?

Atheist, like theist, is not a proper noun. Giving it a capital letter implies atheism is some movement or subversive organisation when it is really just what students are naturally gravitating towards.

kylith

Corkfeen wrote: »

I think my mother would have preferred me to look respectable(good) in college over being Catholic and she is a Catholic. The priorities of an Irish mammy are complex.

I mean Mammys filling in the census on behalf of their children and putting them down as Catholic regardless of the young person actual stance on religion.

Last census we had reports on here of parents changing what their children had put down, putting them down as RCC even though their child had told them not to, that kind of thing.

kuro_man

What's your point?

Morbert wrote: »

Atheist, like theist, is not a proper noun. Giving it a capital letter implies atheism is some movement or subversive organisation when it is really just what students are naturally gravitating towards.

yep, what he said!

Dave!

1 in 5 seems very low to me Would have expected a much high percentage than that to be honest

Cabaal

I think the biggest most concerning thing here is.....3% believe in Jedi!!!


http://www.thejournal.ie/students-religion-ireland-1035328-Aug2013/

Zillah

Dave! wrote: »

1 in 5 seems very low to me Would have expected a much high percentage than that to be honest

It is higher. People just don't like the A-Word. Thanks, largely, to religious demonisation of that word. People think that "atheist" means that you claim to know there is no God with 100% surety, which would be ridiculous, but it is the strawman for which most people have fallen. I've had this conversation a few times:

Them: I'm not an atheist, really.
Me: Do you believe in God?
Them: No, I believe there is an energy/goodness/purpose to life.
Me: Well, then you're an atheist.
Them: What?! No I'm not!

Or this one

Them: Are you religious?
Me: No, I am an atheist.
Them: Wow! I don't agree with that, you can't know 100% there is no God.
Me: I don't claim to know there is no God. I accept there is a possibility of a God but I find it very unlikely and don't believe there is a God.
Them: But that's an agnostic.
Me: No that's....actually I'm going to get a drink.

Basically most people are completely incapable of grasping the meaning of terms they insist on using—frequently in an emotive and confrontational manner.

What I would really like is a survey that asked people for a yes/no/not sure response to a number of specific claims, like God's existence, the afterlife, miracles, the validity of the Pope, etc, and then used those responses to define what their label is. I suspect the number of atheists would double. And all those now accurately labelled people would throw hysterics that they have been classed as such.

Sarky

Corkfeen wrote: »

I think my mother would have preferred me to look respectable(good) in college over being Catholic and she is a Catholic. The priorities of an Irish mammy are complex.

I've lived away from home since 1999, I'm fully employed and self-sufficient, and my mother still gets more concerned over what I'm wearing than any spiritual wellbeing.

Dades

Dave! wrote: »

1 in 5 seems very low to me Would have expected a much high percentage than that to be honest

I suspect there are many more.

But, like a young buck I once knew, they're just too busy skipping lectures, drinking and engaging in mating rituals to have thought about it enough to define it.

Mark Hamill

HurtLocker wrote: »

These people who claim to be Catholic 57% yet 83% of people want abortion in Ireland. After all the religion thats shoved down out throats a huge chunk of proclaimed "Catholics" have no idea what saying "I am a Catholic" actually means.

Never mind their opinion on abortion, their opinion on the existence of god says more about their understanding of what saying "I am a Catholic" actually means.

article wrote:

When asked how they would characterise their belief in God, only 37.5% state that they believe in God

Amirani

Morbert wrote: »

Atheist, like theist, is not a proper noun. Giving it a capital letter implies atheism is some movement or subversive organisation when it is really just what students are naturally gravitating towards.

I think its colloquial meaning has changed a lot to the point where most people use it as a noun. But you are of course correct.

The religious denominations mentioned above aren't being used as nouns either.

Corkfeen

kylith wrote: »

I mean Mammys filling in the census on behalf of their children and putting them down as Catholic regardless of the young person actual stance on religion.

Last census we had reports on here of parents changing what their children had put down, putting them down as RCC even though their child had told them not to, that kind of thing.

I was told to stay in a different house the day the census was filled out. So I had to be included in someone else's census instead.

seamus

Dave! wrote: »

1 in 5 seems very low to me Would have expected a much high percentage than that to be honest

It's functionally much higher than that, the meaning of atheism being a matter for debate.

When asked how they would characterise their belief in God, only 37.5% state that they believe in God with the top response at 41.5% being that students are unsure if there is a God

So chances are, they have 3 answers here:
I believe: 37.5%
I don't believe: 21%
I don't know: 41.5%

In reality, that 41.5% can be divided into theist and atheist, but the poll is strictly taking the "I don't believe"s as atheist.

One of the interesting stats which I don't recall having seen asked before - "Why do you follow a religion":

Only 13.7% follow a religion due to a strong faith.

Which basically means that 86.3% of religious people polled follow a religion for reason other than faith. Though to be fair, one of the answers may be, "I have some faith".

I'd love to see the actual breakdown of this, why don't they publish these things :-/

seamus

Corkfeen wrote: »

I was told to stay in a different house the day the census was filled out.

First thing that sprung to mind:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqYWlb2A55c

Bannasidhe

Sarky wrote: »

I've lived away from home since 1999, I'm fully employed and self-sufficient, and my mother still gets more concerned over what I'm wearing than any spiritual wellbeing.

Tell me about it - I left home in 1983....

Kiwi in IE

Everybody is agnostic. There is not a person who has lived or who is currently living who knows with 100% certainty whether the is definitely a god. Religious people HOPE there is a god, but that is all it is, hope. They have no special knowledge of the definite existence of a diety that the rest of us are not privy to. Hope and belief are entirely different from factual knowledge.

Sarky

In before some religious poster shows us the completely different definition of 'hope' that they work off as if that proves something.

Zillah

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Everybody is agnostic. There is not a person who has lived or who is currently living who knows with 100% certainty whether the is definitely a god. Religious people HOPE there is a god, but that is all it is, hope. They have no special knowledge of the definite existence of a diety that the rest of us are not privy to. Hope and belief are entirely different from factual knowledge.

That raises an interesting conundrum. Does gnosticism refer to one's stated position or one's objective position? Some people will claim to know there is a God, they are taking a gnostic position in relation to God...can we say that they are not gnostic because we maintain they do not, in fact, have such knowledge?

Kiwi in IE

Zillah wrote: »

That raises an interesting conundrum. Does gnosticism refer to one's stated position or one's objective position? Some people will claim to know there is a God, they are taking a gnostic position in relation to God...can we say that they are not gnostic because we maintain they do not, in fact, have such knowledge?

Spiritual beliefs are all subjective. No matter how firmly one believes the existence of a deity to be truth, it is not an objective truth, like the existence of water or the sofa I am sat on. To believe what cannot be proven is a subjective position. Gnosticism refers to the "knowledge of spiritual truth". A phrase which is oxymoronic in itself. There is no objective spiritual truth that has been proven to exist. Therefore I think it can be said that a gnostic person does not have that knowledge. Anyone can hold a belief that they consider to be truth, but knowledge must be justifiable.

mickrock

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Hope and belief are entirely different from factual knowledge.

What factual knowledge do atheists have about, for example, how life could have originated by accident from inorganic matter and how DNA could have come about?

None, just hope and belief that one day it'll all be figured out. They have faith in the fairy tale that chance and physical laws will be adequate explanations.

Sarky

Christ, are you still flogging that dead horse mickrock? Did you ever read up on evolution or abiogenesis like I'd recommended? It really would help you stop with this nonsense.

SmilingLurker

mickrock wrote: »

What factual knowledge do atheists have about, for example, how life could have originated by accident from inorganic matter and how DNA could have come about?

None, just hope and belief that one day it'll all be figured out. They have faith in the fairy tale that chance and physical laws will be adequate explanations.

Scientists have many hypotheses, none of which meet criteria to be accepted. In summary, scientists do not know yet. No fairy tale. No faith. Not enough evidence.

Given a choice of magic man in the sky or inorganic matter forming life over a very large period of time under some currently unknown circumstances, I choose the latter as more likely given the balance of probabilities.

Not knowing answers is not a weakness.

kylith

mickrock wrote: »

What factual knowledge do atheists have about, for example, how life could have originated by accident from inorganic matter and how DNA could have come about?

None, just hope and belief that one day it'll all be figured out. They have faith in the fairy tale that chance and physical laws will be adequate explanations.

So, science has yet to perfect a time machine to go back and see exactly how life originated on earth, therefore 'magic' is a viable alternative?

seamus

mickrock wrote: »

What factual knowledge do atheists have about, for example, how life could have originated by accident from inorganic matter and how DNA could have come about?

What factual knowledge do theists have about the matter?

Note, I'm looking for factual knowledge, not myths and legends written 3 millenia ago.

PopePalpatine

The latter half of mickrock's username is appropriate when it comes to discussing evolution.

5uspect

mickrock wrote: »

What factual knowledge do atheists have about, for example, how life could have originated by accident from inorganic matter and how DNA could have come about?

None, just hope and belief that one day it'll all be figured out. They have faith in the fairy tale that chance and physical laws will be adequate explanations.

Why don't you go do a lit review of the scientific literature and let us know. Have you ever read a Journal paper?

mickrock

seamus wrote: »

What factual knowledge do theists have about the matter?

Note, I'm looking for factual knowledge, not myths and legends written 3 millenia ago.

Neither side has any factual knowledge of what happened but the more reasonable explanation or inference would be that intelligence was involved.

To rule out an intelligent cause at the outset just because you don't like the idea would be short sighted.

Knowing what we now know, saying that life and DNA just happened by accident would be like saying it happened by magic. The idea that it happened by accident is more ridiculous than the idea of an intelligent cause.

kylith

mickrock wrote: »

Neither side has any factual knowledge of what happened but the more reasonable explanation or inference would be that intelligence was involved.

To rule out an intelligent cause at the outset just because you don't like the idea would be short sighted.

Knowing what we now know, saying that life and DNA just happened by accident would be like saying it happened by magic. The idea that it happened by accident is more ridiculous than the idea of an intelligent cause.

It's not that we don't like the idea, it's that there is absolutely zero evidence for it.

longhalloween

I wonder what the answer would be if they posed the question "When was the last time you went to mass on your own volition?"

I doubt they'd get a 10% positive response to that.

mickrock

kylith wrote: »

It's not that we don't like the idea, it's that there is absolutely zero evidence for it.

There's zero evidence for abiogenesis, yet it's accepted by many as what must have happened. I'd call it wishful thinking.

Cabaal

mickrock wrote: »

Neither side has any factual knowledge of what happened but the more reasonable explanation or inference would be that intelligence was involved.

To rule out an intelligent cause at the outset just because you don't like the idea would be short sighted.

Knowing what we now know, saying that life and DNA just happened by accident would be like saying it happened by magic. The idea that it happened by accident is more ridiculous than the idea of an intelligent cause.

Ok, lets ignore ALL the evidence and go with what you are saying,

The intelligence was Gaia, the christian god is all a lie and its utter nonsense and Gaia is far older and she created life on earth. Uranus created the galaxy's and stars.

Happy now? No?

Bannasidhe

mickrock wrote: »

There's zero evidence for abiogenesis, yet it's accepted by many as what must have happened. I'd call it wishful thinking.

This post overwhelmed me with Deja Poo.

Delirium

mickrock wrote: »

There's zero evidence for abiogenesis, yet it's accepted by many as what must have happened. I'd call it wishful thinking.

but accepting the idea of an intelligence, that has no proof of their existence, created matter from nothing isn't?

robindch

mickrock wrote: »

Neither side has any factual knowledge of what happened but the more reasonable explanation or inference would be that intelligence was involved.

Mick, you've been asked time and again not to assume that everybody shares your thundering cluelessness of biology.

There are people who have studied this stuff and have come to reasonably reliable answers on it, even though you're unaware of them and their work and knowing that you have no interest in either.

If you'd like to improve the rep of creationists here -- and heaven knows, it could hardly be worse -- you could try to remember these facts for longer than the time it takes to do a really, really long fart.

5uspect

mickrock wrote: »

Neither side has any factual knowledge of what happened but the more reasonable explanation or inference would be that intelligence was involved.

To rule out an intelligent cause at the outset just because you don't like the idea would be short sighted.

Knowing what we now know, saying that life and DNA just happened by accident would be like saying it happened by magic. The idea that it happened by accident is more ridiculous than the idea of an intelligent cause.

But the intelligence is magic right?

maguic24

kylith wrote: »

I mean Mammys filling in the census on behalf of their children and putting them down as Catholic regardless of the young person actual stance on religion.

Last census we had reports on here of parents changing what their children had put down, putting them down as RCC even though their child had told them not to, that kind of thing.

My mammy does this despite the fact she knows I'm an atheist...

Haven't lived at home since I was 17.....I've been renting and move a lot so it's easier to get sh*t sent there....

mickrock

koth wrote: »

but accepting the idea of an intelligence, that has no proof of their existence, created matter from nothing isn't?

I'm talking about the origin of life from matter, not the creation of matter. That's a separate issue.

If something has the appearance of design the default position should be that it was designed, unless it can be shown otherwise. As time goes on it's becoming increasingly clear that ways of trying to explain the appearance of design by undirected, unintelligent means are looking weaker and weaker.

robindch

mickrock wrote: »

If something has the appearance of design the default position should be that it was designed, unless it can be shown otherwise. As time goes on it's becoming increasingly clear that ways of trying to explain the appearance of design by undirected, unintelligent means are looking weaker and weaker.

Mick, you've been asked time and again not to assume that everybody shares your thundering cluelessness of biology.

There are people who have studied this stuff and have come to reasonably reliable answers on it, even though you're unaware of them and their work and having no interest in either.

If you'd like to improve the rep of creationists here -- and heaven knows, it could hardly be worse -- you could try to remember these facts for longer than the time it takes to do a really, really long fart.

mickrock

SmilingLurker wrote: »

Scientists have many hypotheses, none of which meet criteria to be accepted. In summary, scientists do not know yet. No fairy tale. No faith. Not enough evidence.

Given a choice of magic man in the sky or inorganic matter forming life over a very large period of time under some currently unknown circumstances, I choose the latter as more likely given the balance of probabilities.

Not knowing answers is not a weakness.

You say not knowing answers is not a weakness.

Likewise I don't see the idea that it might have an intelligent cause to be a weakness either, as you seem to do.

Sarky

You don't see because you are doing your level best to ensure you remain blind

Delirium

mickrock wrote: »

I'm talking about the origin of life from matter, not the creation of matter. That's a separate issue.

If something has the appearance of design the default position should be that it was designed, unless it can be shown otherwise. As time goes on it's becoming increasingly clear that ways of trying to explain the appearance of design by undirected, unintelligent means are looking weaker and weaker.

No, you're not.

Humans seem as if designed, ergo designer.
Earth seems designed as it supports human life, ergo designer.

The designer(s) of Earth and humans also seem designed (because humans are).

The universe must be designed to support the Earth-designers.

And so on, ad infinitaum. You're kicking the can down the road. At some point you have to have life that arose without a designer. Otherwise, you're putting forward "God did it".

Knasher

mickrock wrote: »

I'm talking about the origin of life from matter, not the creation of matter. That's a separate issue.

If something has the appearance of design the default position should be that it was designed, unless it can be shown otherwise. As time goes on it's becoming increasingly clear that ways of trying to explain the appearance of design by undirected, unintelligent means are looking weaker and weaker.

Isn't it your position, as a christian (I assume), that the entire universe moves exactly to gods plan, that literally everything is designed. So what frame of reference would you have to recognise something that isn't designed? If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

robindch

btw, now that this has deteriorated into discussing creationism, any further creationism-related posts will be moved to A+A's god-did-it thread.