Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

alaimacerc

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I said that the formal RCC line on homosexuality doesn't float many people's boats in Ireland but that most people were content to let that slide.

The "formal line"? That homosexual acts are matters of grave sin, a homosexual orientation is "objectively disordered", and that sovereign states may not legislate to give effect to equal rights to gay people? As opposed to what "informal line"? What's your basis for concluding that this is an "optional extra" of Catholic doctrine? Do you think that the hierarchy have shown equal enthusiasm for letting slide their flock's "letting that slide"?

alaimacerc

King Mob wrote: »

Kinda hypocritical for you to badger people about not answering questions when you ignored one.

Ignored one? That's a very conservative estimate indeed. BB is the epitome of self-exceptionalist cherry-picking as to which questions must be addressed. (And it has very little to do with which of them are on-topic.)

Mark Hamill

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Don't hold back now. Your rant has my attention though. For clarity, you are in the Mark Hamill camp

It's always nice to know that people are talking about you, BB, but it would be nice if they talked to you, every once in a while too.

alaimacerc

King Mob wrote: »

How about someone who rejects the Quran as a whole, are they Muslim if they claim they are?

I don't want to follow BB too far down this digressionary tale, and i think cross-religious comparisons are inherently difficult and problematic, but my stab at the approximate equivalent of the Nicene Creed would be the shahada. "There is no god but God, Muhammad is the messenger of God," and assorted elaborations thereof.

alaimacerc

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Then you also accept the authority of the religions to decide who is and isn't a member, assuming the member wants in.

Why are we assuming that? It certainly appears that the religions aren't. It's also not inconceivable (though admittedly far less likely) that we could have the reverse situation, of someone "affiliating" themselves with a religion that doesn't accept their "membership".

Personally, I don't accept the "authority" of any religion to do diddly. The meaning of concepts like "Muslim", "Catholic", "Protestant" (even more so, "Christian") are up for public debate, and aren't simply wholly owned by either the individual "identifyee", the denomination in question, or any poorly-defined combination of the two.

weisses

alaimacerc wrote: »

This should hardly be news to you, given the amount of time you've spent unconvincingly trying to rubbish surveys on religious belief.

Where did he rubbish the census ?

Or are you confusing it with dodgy polls ? (somehow they became leading in this discussion)

alaimacerc

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I've given you ample opportunity to do the decent thing. Unfortunately, despite you not being able to quote me on what you falsely claim I said you opt to weasel your way out of it. I can't force you to act with integrity so there is really nothing else to say.

Frankly, this is pretty insufferable stuff. You seriously expect after saying Ireland was "officially 90% Catholic" that someone paraphrase you as having said it was "Catholic" that this is somehow to be seen as putting words in your mouth beyond what you by all appearances intended? If anything, I think it's being positively kind, giving how (seemingly deliberately) misleading the original statement was, as I pointed out in some detail at the time. (I can't help but think of IHI and his "religious and property rights of private schools" riff, which is in much the same vein.)

You should take a leaf out of the "integrity" book that you're attempting to use to bludgeon other people over the head, and desist with this line of grandstanding and deflection.

alaimacerc

weisses wrote: »

Where did he rubbish the census ?

Did you actually read what you just quoted? That's not remotely what I said.

Or are you confusing it with dodgy polls ?

Am I "confusing" opinion surveys with... opinion surveys? Well, now there's a puzzler...

Mark Hamill

alaimacerc wrote: »

Personally, I don't accept the "authority" of any religion to do diddly. The meaning of concepts like "Muslim", "Catholic", "Protestant" (even more so, "Christian") are up for public debate, and aren't simply wholly owned by either the individual "identifyee", the denomination in question, or any poorly-defined combination of the two.

But how does that not make any of those words completely useless and meaningless? No church (or equivalent) can say what catholic (or equivalent) means, but neither can any individual "catholic" (or equivalent). So what the hell does "catholic" actually mean?

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Exactly. Like I said wayyyyyyy back, if we unpack any of these sources they don't stand up to scrutiny. They may provide some questions but they certainly don't provide any answers. I truly believe that atheist activists would realise this if they could somehow detach themselves emotionally from issues of religion.

What absolute rubbish. It is perfectly accurate. I'll show again with added emphasis this time.

Again, I feel no particular need to defend someone else's post, especially when they have explained to you what you are misrepresenting and you are talking past them.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Now that that is settled perhaps you could apologise for falsely accusing me of being dishonest?

And I feel no particular need to apologise since I'm still waiting for your apology for accusing me of not answering your question about whether or not thos guys are muslim.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I've said repeatedly that the census is flawed, but is by far the best indicator of religious affiliation in Ireland.

If you disagree. Post your better source of information.

I'll pose the same question to you. Since the census cannot be used to determine the beliefs of the people who you identify as christian or catholic, what other conclusions can you gain from those figures?
Does it indicate the number of people who agree with church policies?
The number of people who wish for Catholic education?
Any practical information beyond the number of people who ticked that particular box

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Hmmmm...... This is again something that I've said many times. It's not simply a case of believe and do whatever you want and maintain the right to call yourself whatever you want.

The society is governed by elders. The elders make the rules and enforce the penalties. The individual opts-in to this society with this understanding. The society may refuse membership or exclude the individual from membership as a "penalty". For example, if you signed up as a member of the George Michael fanclub you are entitled to call yourself a member as long as you want until you get excluded for not paying your annual fee, for example.

The other side of that is fundamentalists on both sides, religious and anti-religious screaming "Infidel!" and "Apostate" for not being blindly obedient or accepting unconditionally and without any doubt the doctrines.

So then if elders have a say, then a person who does not adhere to the defining beliefs of the Catholic Church, isn't actually a Catholic.
What you are saying is that it's only the name and what arbitrary name you are raised in that matter, thus making them essentially interchangable and meaningless.

alaimacerc

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But how does that not make any of those words completely useless and meaningless? No church (or equivalent) can say what catholic (or equivalent) means, but neither can any individual "catholic" (or equivalent). So what the hell does "catholic" actually mean?

Welcome to the wonderful world of language! They mean what the consensus body of people say they mean, or what one can be construed as meaning by them in a particular context. Which is exactly why it's important to argue against the sense of accepting "box-ticking" identification by people with no Catholic (etc) belief and no Catholic (etc) practice.

For people with some very small small but non-zero belief or practice, one can argue the toss, but I certainly don't think it's sufficient to say "the church considers me a member because I'm sprinkled, and I consider myself a member because of... no real reason, I just ticked the box because."

weisses

alaimacerc wrote: »

Welcome to the wonderful world of language! They mean what the consensus body of people say they mean, or what one can be construed as meaning by them in a particular context. Which is exactly why it's important to argue against the sense of accepting "box-ticking" identification by people with no Catholic (etc) belief and no Catholic (etc) practice.

For people with some very small small but non-zero belief or practice, one can argue the toss, but I certainly don't think it's sufficient to say "the church considers me a member because I'm sprinkled, and I consider myself a member because of... no real reason, I just ticked the box because."

Could you not hold the same arguments against all polls ?

alaimacerc

weisses wrote: »

Could you not hold the same arguments against all polls ?

Polls? What is it with you and "polls"?

As I've pointed out several times now, the singular problem with the census is that it asks one question, with no elaboration as to what precisely it means by "religion". Clearly different people interpret that question differently. Opinion surveys generally ask several questions, and thus help factor out the different possible aspects. Thus if you ask someone their religion, and they say "Catholic", if they believe in god, and they say "no", and how often do they go to church, and they say "never", we have considerably more idea of what sort of "Catholic" they are than the single-box-tick on the census.

Set against which, you have sampling error.

Brown Bomber

alaimacerc wrote: »

I've repeatedly said that some sort of belief is the crux, as far as I'm concerned. Given that what we're talking about is a religion that itself identifies belief as such. This should hardly be news to you, given the amount of time you've spent unconvincingly trying to rubbish surveys on religious belief. If someone is utterly absent of belief but still observes some of the outward forms, it's more trouble that it's worth to exclude them, either, though (before we get more stuff about "respecting the hypothetical religious rights of those with no religious belief").


"Registered atheists"? What the heck does that even mean? Are you envisaging a model where one needs a permit to not believe in god, as if one were a dog, television, or a gay person or Jehovah's Witness in 1930s Germany? Atheism merely requires not believing in god. You don't have to join anything, tithe anything, pay (a)parish (un)dues, believe anything else, do (or refrain from doing) anything, and certainly not to register anywhere.

There's ample evidence of more than 3000 actual atheists in Ireland. Indeed, there's ample evidence of far more than 3000 actual atheists that are counted as Catholics on the census returns.


You should blush to mention Orwell's name (de plume), given the complete absence of any actual argument being advanced here (or indeed, elsewhere much else). "TL;DR" is not a valid debating point. Or indeed, a sign of anything else beyond arguing in outright bad faith.

Just read through all this blather and when the blather is removed there is nothing there at all and certainly nothing relevant to what I actually said. So I'll repeat plainly.

One of the sources advanced in this discussion as somehow debunking the surveying of the entire population is a single survey on mass attendance. Mark Hamill says that this is the true number of Catholics in the country. King Mob says that we can't possibly know from this information if the people not attending mass are Catholic or not, making the data useless for establishing the number of Catholics.

What is your opinion on this?

You assert that that all the sources by the census-deniers stand up to scrutiny, including what much is based on, the bastion of truth - irishcentral.com. Does this source stand up to scrutiny? Does it tell us how many Catholics are in Ireland? Why?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Again, I feel no particular need to defend someone else's post, especially when they have explained to you what you are misrepresenting and you are talking past them.

Misrepresent? :pac:

I've quoted him directly. Which part of if someone considers themselves Catholic and don't go to mass then they aren't Catholic do you not understand?

King Mob wrote: »

I'll pose the same question to you. Since the census cannot be used to determine the beliefs of the people who you identify as christian or catholic, what other conclusions can you gain from those figures?
Does it indicate the number of people who agree with church policies?
The number of people who wish for Catholic education?
Any practical information beyond the number of people who ticked that particular box

What kind of an answer starts with "and I'll pose the same question to you"?:rolleyes:

This is exactly the denialism I was talking about from day 1. If you had a better source of information than the census that tells us of the religious affiliation of our citizens then you would have linked to it. It is safe to conclude that you cannot. Though feel free to prove otherwise.

King Mob wrote: »

So then if elders have a say, then a person who does not adhere to the defining beliefs of the Catholic Church, isn't actually a Catholic.
What you are saying is that it's only the name and what arbitrary name you are raised in that matter, thus making them essentially interchangable and meaningless.

No, I am saying it is a private contract between the individual who wants in or to remain in and the society and the relationship is defined by those two parties and has damn all to do with you.

Brown Bomber

alaimacerc wrote: »

Frankly, this is pretty insufferable stuff. You seriously expect after saying Ireland was "officially 90% Catholic" that someone paraphrase you as having said it was "Catholic" that this is somehow to be seen as putting words in your mouth beyond what you by all appearances intended? If anything, I think it's being positively kind, giving how (seemingly deliberately) misleading the original statement was, as I pointed out in some detail at the time. (I can't help but think of IHI and his "religious and property rights of private schools" riff, which is in much the same vein.)

You should take a leaf out of the "integrity" book that you're attempting to use to bludgeon other people over the head, and desist with this line of grandstanding and deflection.

You might want to avert your eyes for a moment but Ireland is "officially 90% Christian", with the officials being our elected government.

Why don't you call the CSO and ask them what is the proportion of Christians in this country and see what they tell you?

Contact Census: Tel: 353-1-8951460

Then if you don't get the answer you want you can throw your toys out of the pram with them, throw in a few ad-homs. insist they are wrong by pointing out an article at irishcentral.com, some other anecdotal stuff you read on the internet and a couple of obscure polls that you've cherry-picked.

robindch

Brown Bomber wrote: »

[...] I've actually stopped reading [...]

That's kind of the problem, BB.

BTW, I assume that you're happy that the Tsarnaev brothers are as islamic as they want(ed) to be.

Turtwig

So what did I miss?

TheChizler

Jernal wrote: »

So what did I miss?

More blatant inconvenient-post-ignoring than normal.

alaimacerc

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You might want to avert your eyes for a moment but Ireland is "officially 90% Christian", with the officials being our elected government.

Well, no. Ireland has census returns in which around 90% indicate a religious denomination belonging to the Christian family. That's far from the same thing, especially if you're going to yell "infamous calumny!" when your "Ireland is officially 90% Christian" is paraphrased as "Ireland is a Christian country". Their paraphrase is closer to your paraphrase than their paraphrase is to the actual facts.

Rest snipped as mere baiting. Better luck getting me in a crankier mood next time, I guess.

alaimacerc

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Just read through all this blather and when the blather is removed there is nothing there at all and certainly nothing relevant to what I actually said. So I'll repeat plainly.

You think that it's any improvement on "la-la-la, not reading" to say "well, read that, not answering any of it, here's an entirely different question that suits me better"? Well, it's not. Engage with what's actually said, or don't trouble to hit the "quote" button. Or else, well, face further mockery of your bluffery.

Brown Bomber

robindch wrote: »

That's kind of the problem, BB.

BTW, I assume that you're happy that the Tsarnaev brothers are as islamic as they want(ed) to be.

"Islamic as they want to be" doesn't mean anything. I consider them Muslims. Can you tell what kind of processes you went through before deciding this guy was a Muslim terrorist,

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72235374&postcount=250

Also, why do you persist in calling Muslims as "Islamics"? A Muslim is a follower of Islam, an "Islamic" whatever that is as a noun isn't.

Brown Bomber

alaimacerc wrote: »

Well, no. Ireland has census returns in which around 90% indicate a religious denomination belonging to the Christian family. That's far from the same thing, especially if you're going to yell "infamous calumny!" when your "Ireland is officially 90% Christian" is paraphrased as "Ireland is a Christian country". Their paraphrase is closer to your paraphrase than their paraphrase is to the actual facts.

Rest snipped as mere baiting. Better luck getting me in a crankier mood next time, I guess.

Save yourself the phonecall. The CSO will tell you, like I have told you that Ireland is officially 90% Christian whether you like it or not.

http://www.cso.ie/en/newsandevents/pressreleases/2012pressreleases/pressreleaseCensus2011profile7religionethnicityandirishtravellers/

Brown Bomber

alaimacerc wrote: »

You think that it's any improvement on "la-la-la, not reading" to say "well, read that, not answering any of it, here's an entirely different question that suits me better"? Well, it's not. Engage with what's actually said, or don't trouble to hit the "quote" button. Or else, well, face further mockery of your bluffery.

Jernal, could I ask your opinion on this as an impartial observer.

In post 1437 I asked this guy a question. 1455 I rephrased the same question. Could you confirm this or could you give your opinion on it being an "entirely different question" because I am not going to rephrase this a third time.

Thanks.

alaimacerc

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Also, why do you persist in calling Muslims as "Islamics"? A Muslim is a follower of Islam, an "Islamic" whatever that is as a noun isn't.

He didn't. He said "as islamic as they want". That's using it as an adjective. It means "pertaining to islam."

Here to help.

alaimacerc

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Save yourself the phonecall. The CSO will tell you, like I have told you that Ireland is officially 90% Christian whether you like it or not.

http://www.cso.ie/en/newsandevents/pressreleases/2012pressreleases/pressreleaseCensus2011profile7religionethnicityandirishtravellers/

Curiously, your link doesn't use any variation of that phrase whatsoever. You can' keep "telling" me: don't make it so. See... well, this entire thread, essentially traducing this inelegant characterisation in detail.

As I said: it's a deliberately misleading paraphrase of the census results. Compared to which, others' paraphrase of your paraphrase is entirely understandable and benign.

Brown Bomber

Your help is not required.

robindch wrote: »

As with people who self-identify as catholic when they don't agree with most or all of the membership criteria, it seems that islamics do the exact same thing.

So, there you have it -- islamics claimed responsibility for the suicide bombing

Brown Bomber

alaimacerc wrote: »

Curiously, your link doesn't use any variation of that phrase whatsoever. You can' keep "telling" me: don't make it so. See... well, this entire thread, essentially traducing this inelegant characterisation in detail.

As I said: it's a deliberately misleading paraphrase of the census results. Compared to which, others' paraphrase of your paraphrase is entirely understandable and benign.

I'm not telling you so. The census is telling us both that Ireland is officially 90% Christian.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What kind of an answer starts with "and I'll pose the same question to you"?:rolleyes:

This is exactly the denialism I was talking about from day 1. If you had a better source of information than the census that tells us of the religious affiliation of our citizens then you would have linked to it. It is safe to conclude that you cannot. Though feel free to prove otherwise.

The kind of answer that illustrates the issue in your position.

The Census offers no useful or reliable information in this regard because you are arguing that the label of Christian does not imply any other information other than that's what people like to call themselves, regardless of belief.

It does not tell us religious affiliation. Affiliation means that you share some with that group. You say that there is nothing shared with that group besides the name.

So what percentage of people in Ireland agree with the church?
What percentage go to mass?
What percentage believes in God?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No, I am saying it is a private contract between the individual who wants in or to remain in and the society and the relationship is defined by those two parties and has damn all to do with you.

So the relationship is defined by the two parties, unless one party wants to ignore the rules set by the other party?

And no, it's none of my business what they call themselves. However this does not change the fact that people can mislabel themselves and their beliefs.

You recognise that there are defining traits between religions, so if someone does not adhere to them, rejects them or otherwise not believe them, then they do not believe the things that define that religion.
The can still claim they are part of that religion. But we are just saying they are mislabeling themselves.
You, by saying it's impossible to mislabel yourself, are saying that the unique differences between religions are utterly meaningless and religions are all the same.

If an atheist had said such a thing, I think we'd be hearing no end of it.

alaimacerc

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm not telling you so. The census is telling us both that Ireland is officially 90% Christian.

No, it's not. I've told you what the census is telling us. If you want to continue to tell us that your "summary" is more apt than mine, then tell us why, as opposed to merely repeatedly telling us that you're telling us.