Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

AerynSun · 06-01-2014 07:09PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

"Primacy of conscience" is nonsense, nowhere in the biblical teachings is it to be seen

And as any good Catholic will tell you, Catholicism depends on scripture AND tradition - so telling us 'it's not in the Bible' doesn't suddenly make it a nonsense for Catholics. It's a nonsense for Christians who claim to adhere solely to scripture (although the irony there, is that they do this within their own tradition... so while they say they reject tradition in favour of scripture, in practice they don't).

It's a weasel term to fool people into thinking they still get a say, but with the rules set up so that if someone disagrees, you can just say they haven't studied church teaching enough.

Nope, not a weasel term at all. If someone disagrees, having listened to their well-formed conscience, then their disagreement takes precedence over anything else. So they can object to a particular piece of doctrine and still be Catholic.

At what point of disagreeing does someone stop being a catholic? At what point does the word lose all meaning?

Those are really good questions, and I don't know that I have an answer. I suppose it would be up to the individual to decide that their disagreements are significant enough that they've 'stopped being Catholic' - in which case it would be great if Canon Law would allow them to formally defect if they so choose.

The word 'Catholic' only has meaning for people insofar as they engage with the word and make meaning of it. Same goes for all other social identifiers, religious or otherwise.

Days 298 · 06-01-2014 07:20PM

Still confused what difference it makes if ones religion is adhered to be 9% or 90%. Each individual is equal. Or do Christians hold the view that all minorities don't get a say. We clearly do now.

This isnt the middle east.

AerynSun · 06-01-2014 07:38PM

Days 298 wrote: »

Still confused what difference it makes if ones religion is adhered to be 9% or 90%. Each individual is equal. Or do Christians hold the view that all minorities don't get a say. We clearly do now.

This isnt the middle east.

For me the issue is around how and why people self-identify as Catholic. If they do so for cultural reasons more than religious reasons, then it means that counting them for religious lobbying of public policy is not a fair use of their numbers. If people identify as Catholic for religious reasons, then there's still a debate about whether one could use their numbers in lobbying for or against particular public policies when Catholics rightly have different views based on their individual conscience: so it's wrong for any group to bandy about a 'Catholic' number (aka 84% of the Irish population) as a given number in support of opposing, for example, marriage equality.

Minorities should get a say. Church and State should be separate. And Church shouldn't try to lobby the State using skewed membership figures - basically minorities within the Church should also get their say in terms of the Church's social agenda.

Days 298 · 06-01-2014 07:42PM

AerynSun wrote: »

For me the issue is around how and why people self-identify as Catholic. If they do so for cultural reasons more than religious reasons, then it means that counting them for religious lobbying of public policy is not a fair use of their numbers. If people identify as Catholic for religious reasons, then there's still a debate about whether one could use their numbers in lobbying for or against particular public policies when Catholics rightly have different views based on their individual conscience: so it's wrong for any group to bandy about a 'Catholic' number (aka 84% of the Irish population) as a given number in support of opposing, for example, marriage equality.

Minorities should get a say. Church and State should be separate. And Church shouldn't try to lobby the State using skewed membership figures - basically minorities within the Church should also get their say in terms of the Church's social agenda.

We all know that religion plays a very small role in the typical Irish Catholics life.They have never really given a seconds thought to why they tick Catholic on the census. They see it as part of their ethnicity maybe or its just the "way its always been done"

Wonder how what percentage of the population attend a religious service other than baptisms and funerals more than 2 times a year.

Brown Bomber · 06-01-2014 07:51PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The belief includes believing that you have to do the ritual, so they are one in the same.

If that is the case then the reverse must equally be true. If an atheist is a regular mass-goer then they "believe". Obviously this isn't true because as I've said, you are wrong. Ritual and belief are independent of each other.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why, when dictionaries have nothing to do with my point?
Of course, if you want to be a smart arse and pretend that all that matter is dictionary definitions, then you can look at merriam webster:

thefreedictionary.com:

or wikipedia:

Thanks for proving my point.

"Every dictionary will define Christmas as being a Christian festival celebrating the birth of Jesus".

Mark Hamill · 06-01-2014 07:56PM

AerynSun wrote: »

And as any good Catholic will tell you, Catholicism depends on scripture AND tradition - so telling us 'it's not in the Bible' doesn't suddenly make it a nonsense for Catholics. It's a nonsense for Christians who claim to adhere solely to scripture (although the irony there, is that they do this within their own tradition... so while they say they reject tradition in favour of scripture, in practice they don't).

And where exactly can we see this "primacy of conscience" in tradition? In mass ceremonies? In the Catechism?

AerynSun wrote: »

Nope, not a weasel term at all. If someone disagrees, having listened to their well-formed conscience, then their disagreement takes precedence over anything else. So they can object to a particular piece of doctrine and still be Catholic.

Their well formed conscience, being well formed by "church teaching, reading, prayer, taking counsel, developing the virtue of prudence, and so on". And if they say something that is particularly important to the church, then they are just deflected as not having done enough study, exactly like you tried to me beofre, describing my argument as like "a non-Catholic trying to explain Catholicism: lacking a well-rounded grasp of the teachings and the issues that people have with those teachings".

AerynSun wrote: »

Those are really good questions, and I don't know that I have an answer. I suppose it would be up to the individual to decide that their disagreements are significant enough that they've 'stopped being Catholic' - in which case it would be great if Canon Law would allow them to formally defect if they so choose.

The word 'Catholic' only has meaning for people insofar as they engage with the word and make meaning of it. Same goes for all other social identifiers, religious or otherwise.

Which then makes the word meaningless. Other social identifiers have meaning as long as most people engage with the word and make the same meaning of it, that's how they work, that's why we can use single words to describe some aspect of someone to someone who knows nothing about them. The other person needs only know what is understood by the social identifier to know something about the person being identified. If social identifiers have no common meaning beyond "this person likes this label" then they are useless as who can say what is actually meant by a "insert social identifier" person? You might as well say any noun can have any subjective meaning anyone wants - its simply unworkable in functional language and communication.

Mark Hamill · 06-01-2014 08:02PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If that is the case then the reverse must equally be true. If an atheist is a regular mass-goer then they "believe". Obviously this isn't true because as I've said, you are wrong. Ritual and belief are independent of each other.

Just because all A are B, doesn't mean that all B are A. That's very basic beginner logic.
In catholicism, the ritual is prescribed by the belief, so a catholic must believe they have do to do the ritual.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Thanks for proving my point.

"Every dictionary will define Christmas as being a Christian festival celebrating the birth of Jesus".

Except where they don't? Like in each of my examples where they define christmas as :
"As an increasingly secular festival, it has come to be celebrated by many non-Christians."
"Also called: Christmas Day Dec 25, observed as a day of secular celebrations when gifts and greetings are exchanged"
"a widely observed cultural holiday"

Did anyone say that christmas wasn't at all christian? I'm pretty sure most, if not all, disagreeing with you have been saying that it is not only christian.

AerynSun · 06-01-2014 08:13PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And where exactly can we see this "primacy of conscience" in tradition? In mass ceremonies? In the Catechism?

It IS in the Catechism. You wouldn't see it visibly in any liturgy, but there's a lot of doctrine that isn't made explicit in liturgy.

Their well formed conscience, being well formed by "church teaching, reading, prayer, taking counsel, developing the virtue of prudence, and so on". And if they say something that is particularly important to the church, then they are just deflected as not having done enough study, exactly like you tried to me beofre, describing my argument as like "a non-Catholic trying to explain Catholicism: lacking a well-rounded grasp of the teachings and the issues that people have with those teachings".

The particular argument you were making was a very black/white case, where you were actually in a grey area. I pointed that out. I'm sorry if you felt I was trying to deflect from the issue. While the church hierarchy - and certainly a good proportion of the clergy - will dismiss points of view that don't agree with theirs on the grounds that the person 'isn't informed enough', the reality is that people DO have a right to disagree with church doctrine on the strength of their own conscience, without 'excommunicating themselves'. They would still be Catholic (if they choose).

Which then makes the word meaningless. Other social identifiers have meaning as long as most people engage with the word and make the same meaning of it, that's how they work, that's why we can use single words to describe some aspect of someone to someone who knows nothing about them. The other person needs only know what is understood by the social identifier to know something about the person being identified. If social identifiers have no common meaning beyond "this person likes this label" then they are useless as who can say what is actually meant by a "insert social identifier" person?

Have you tried getting all Jewish people to agree to one simple definition of Judaism? Have you tried asking Hindu people for a concise and incontrovertible summary of their belief system?

Because we're human, we like our social identifiers to be quick and easy - and that's the basis for a lot of miscommunication and stereotyping: humans are lazy about engaging with concepts and ideas. We want a 140-char definition that we never have to think about. But that's not how the social world works, that's not how social meaning is made.

You might as well say any noun can have any subjective meaning anyone wants - its simply unworkable in functional language and communication.

Nope. Some nouns are quite simple: red is red (although... fire engine red versus Ferrari red...) whereas other nouns signify far more complex concepts. I'm neither a linguist nor an anthropologist... so I would do a rubbish job of giving you a good academic explanation of the issues that you're raising... but bottom line for me: I wish the world was so simple that there was a clear 140-char definition of Catholic...but there isn't.

And just for the record, in case it's gotten lost in there somewhere: I'm well informed about Catholicism because I used to be Catholic. As an agnostic, I definitely do NOT support the institutional church's bid for social control in Ireland.

Brown Bomber · 06-01-2014 08:16PM

W

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Just because all A are B, doesn't mean that all B are A. That's very basic beginner logic.
In catholicism, the ritual is prescribed by the belief, so a catholic must believe they have do to do the ritual.

You do understand that a belief in the ritual and actually carrying out the ritual are two entirely different things right?

And that therefore your statistics are worthless.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Except where they don't? Like in each of my examples where they define christmas as :
"As an increasingly secular festival, it has come to be celebrated by many non-Christians."
"Also called: Christmas Day Dec 25, observed as a day of secular celebrations when gifts and greetings are exchanged"
"a widely observed cultural holiday"

And doesn't each of your definitions describe Christmas as a Christian festival - as I've said?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

JDid anyone say that christmas wasn't at all christian? I'm pretty sure most, if not all, disagreeing with you have been saying that it is not only christian.

It's a Christian festival whiose traditions are celebrated by some non-Christians due to our Christian culture.

Brian Shanahan · 06-01-2014 08:29PM

ABC101 wrote: »

Brian... I was not very impressed with your link, on the top corner of the page was "Shadowy Mr Big behind worldwide criminal organisation. Known as Jesus, Christ" etc etc.

And I am not impressed with a person who won't read a well researched, factual and substantial argument just because of a little exaggeration when advertising the site.

And anyways it still doesn't invalidate my point that you're clothing of christmas in christian cloths is substantially a falsehood.

Mark Hamill · 06-01-2014 09:21PM

AerynSun wrote: »

It IS in the Catechism.

Where?

AerynSun wrote: »

The particular argument you were making was a very black/white case, where you were actually in a grey area. I pointed that out. I'm sorry if you felt I was trying to deflect from the issue. While the church hierarchy - and certainly a good proportion of the clergy - will dismiss points of view that don't agree with theirs on the grounds that the person 'isn't informed enough', the reality is that people DO have a right to disagree with church doctrine on the strength of their own conscience, without 'excommunicating themselves'. They would still be Catholic (if they choose).

They would only still be catholic if the church deem their disagreements acceptable. If the church don't deem their disagreements acceptable, then they will be excommunicated, just like the doctors who performed an abortion on a 9 year in Brazil were. What happened to their "Primacy of conscience"?

AerynSun wrote: »

Have you tried getting all Jewish people to agree to one simple definition of Judaism? Have you tried asking Hindu people for a concise and incontrovertible summary of their belief system?

Because we're human, we like our social identifiers to be quick and easy - and that's the basis for a lot of miscommunication and stereotyping: humans are lazy about engaging with concepts and ideas. We want a 140-char definition that we never have to think about. But that's not how the social world works, that's not how social meaning is made.

Except it is, and the issues arise when people try to break that by claiming that words can mean whatever anyone wants them to mean at any time. At worst, we can say that social identifiers have grey areas around the borders (where they may overlap with other social identifiers), but they still have central tenants to give meaning to the words. It might be hard for a Jew or a Hindu to give a simple all encompassing definition for either of those two identifiers, but they can still give simple definitions for how they are different.

AerynSun wrote: »

Nope. Some nouns are quite simple: red is red (although... fire engine red versus Ferrari red...) whereas other nouns signify far more complex concepts. I'm neither a linguist nor an anthropologist... so I would do a rubbish job of giving you a good academic explanation of the issues that you're raising... but bottom line for me: I wish the world was so simple that there was a clear 140-char definition of Catholic...but there isn't.

But they signify those concepts and only those concepts (possibly depending on context), thats what makes the words functional. I have already given a simple definition of a catholic: someone who follows catholic dogma. This simple definition allows us to differentiate between very similar, but crucially, different groups, such as protestants (someone who follows protestant dogma).

Penn · 06-01-2014 09:41PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Because of two facts which many here seem to be in denial about 1- Ireland is overwhelmingly Christian (see the Census) 2-Christmas is a Christian Festival which celebrates the birth of Jesus Christ. (see any dictionary).

Many of these traditions are rooted in our Christian heritage. For example, my wife and all our secular neighbours will take down our CHRISTmas decorations on Jan 13. She is agnostic, was educated in a secular school and knows nothng at all about Christianity. Why? Because it is traditional. Why is it a tradition? Because of our Christian heritage which recognises Little Christmas.

That doesn't answer my question. Why should he specifically have to mention Jesus or Christianity? Just because most people in Ireland are Christian and Christmas stems from Christianity doesn't mean he needs to specifically mention either of those facts in his speech. It's not like he referred to Christmas as Festivus or anything. He wasn't trying to dispute the dictionary definition of Christmas.

If the majority of Irish people are Christian, and Christmas is historically a Christian celebration, then why would he need to specifically point out either of those facts in his speech?

robindch · 06-01-2014 09:43PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

At what point does the word lose all meaning?

When people apply it to themselves without consulting the group that owns and defines the term, but which group is still willing to use their votes to boost its own importance, in the full knowledge that it's entirely dishonest to do so.

Mark Hamill · 06-01-2014 09:53PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You do understand that a belief in the ritual and actually carrying out the ritual are two entirely different things right?

And that therefore your statistics are worthless.

Its not belief in the ritual, its belief that you are supposed to carry out the ritual. My link to the catechism of the RCC demonstrates this belief-that catholics are supposed to go to mass, its a fundamental part of what they are supposed to believe.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And doesn't each of your definitions describe Christmas as a Christian festival - as I've said?

Doesn't each of my definitions describe Christmas as a secular holiday too?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It's a Christian festival whiose traditions are celebrated by some non-Christians due to our Christian culture.

Its a pagan holiday with a thin christian overlay celebrated by many different types of people for many reasons. Do you think that if christianity hadn't tried to appropriate mid winter, solstice celebrations, that we wouldn't be celebrating them anyway?

J C · 06-01-2014 09:56PM

Why does it typically take hundreds of posts to establish anything ... even the most obvious of things ???

The Census is the most universal and professional count of the religious persuasion of the population of Ireland that can ever be done.

The last Census established that slightly over 90% of the population of Ireland professed themselves to be Christians and 0.1% professed themselves to be Atheists (following an extensive campaign by Atheist Ireland to encourage all Atheists to declare themselves as Atheists on the Census).

These are the hard figures ... and the hard reality for those who would like to think (or indeed wish) that we live in a 'post-Christian' Ireland.

To paraphrase Mark Twain ... rumours of the death of Christianity in Ireland are greatly exaggerated.:):D

... and to answer the OP the exact percentage of the population that is Christian is officially, according to the Census, 90.47%.

Here are the figures courtesy of Wikipedia

Religions in the Republic of Ireland, 2011
Religion Number Percent
Christianity 4,150,944 (90.47%)

Roman Catholic 3,861,335 (84.16%)
Church of Ireland 129,039 (2.81%)
Orthodox 45,223 (0.99%)
Presbyterian 24,600 (0.54%)
Apostolic/Pentecostal 14,043 (0.31%)
Methodist 6,842 (0.15%)
Jehovah's Witness 6,149 (0.13%)
Lutheran 5,683 (0.12%)
Protestant 5,326 (0.12%)
Evangelical 4,188 (0.09%)
Baptist 3,531 (0.08%)
Latter Day Saints (Mormon) 1,284 (0.03%)
Lapsed Roman Catholic 1,279 (0.03%)
Quaker (Society of Friends) 925 (0.02%)
Plymouth Brethren 336 (0.01%)
Other Christian religions 41,161 (0.9%)

Non-Christian religions 87,157 (1.9%)
Islam 49,204 (1.07%)
Hindu 10,688 (0.23%)
Buddhist 8,703 (0.19%)
Jewish 1,984 (0.04%)
Pantheist 1,940 (0.04%)
Bahá'í 520 (0.01%)
Other religions 14,118 (0.31%)

Non-religious and unanswered 350,151 (7.63%)
No Religion 269,811 (5.88%)
Atheist 3,905 (0.09%)
Agnostic 3,521 (0.08%)
Not answered 72,914 (1.59%)
Total 4,588,252 (100%)

... and the guys who say that it would break their granny's heart if they didn't declare themselves to be Christian on the Census seem to be forgetting that the Census is strictly confidential ... and their granny could never find out what they put on the Census, in the first place.
I'm also not persuaded by such claims ... because these people usually aren't particularly concerned about what their granny thinks about anything else they get up ... and they certainly don't consult their grannies about anything else they wish to do or say.

ABC101 · 06-01-2014 10:02PM

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

And I am not impressed with a person who won't read a well researched, factual and substantial argument just because of a little exaggeration when advertising the site.

And anyways it still doesn't invalidate my point that you're clothing of christmas in christian cloths is substantially a falsehood.

Brian, I went back to your link, and I ignored the insulting advertising on the top right, so I then clicked on the link
"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Assortment of Early Christian Belief[/FONT] Primitive Christianity never knew a human Jesus!"

Kenneth then goes on to say that Paul did not quote Jesus at all.

Well I just happen to have a New Testament Bible open in front of me... and in the "Letter to the Romans" very first paragraph

"From Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ"... I don't have the time or the space here, but Paul mentions Jesus Christ many many times.

So it is clear from reading "Romans" that Paul talks about the Good News, or the Gospel of God.

I fail to understand why Paul would do what he did in his life for God, if he had no understanding of the teaching of Jesus. Why would Paul refer to Jesus as "Jesus Christ our Lord". Paul spent the majority of his adult life spreading the good news, he died a poor man... in fact he was martyred in Rome.

Kenneth Humphrey's states that

"[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]For the priesthood the rewards have been immense: power, prestige and wealth. They have fused with, and become part of, the ruling elite."[/FONT]

That was not the case of Paul, who was martyred. Recently on "The Journal" website there was an article of the priest running the Capuchin Day center in Dublin. His salary is nil.

I'm not going to spend time reading Mr Humphrey's articles...due to the fact that his arguments are not made in a respectful manner to a Christian person, not well researched, not factual or substantial.

He goes on to say that we know more about Hercules than we do of Jesus! Not at all credible. I mean how many churches are there in the world and then compare that to the number of churches of Hercules!! No competition!!

By the way... your comment..

"just because of a little exaggeration when advertising the site."

Brian... that's a cop out... if I ever heard of one.

If I was giving you verbal abuse I would not expect you to take my argument seriously either, so Kenneth Humphrey's has something to learn there.

On your second point...

"And anyways it still doesn't invalidate my point that you're clothing of christmas in christian cloths is substantially a falsehood"

Can you explain yourself here... I'm not sure I fully understand what you are getting at.

The Black Oil · 06-01-2014 10:03PM

On paper is the key. It doesn't reflect the lived experience or lack thereof. 'Claiming' the 90% as some sort of victory is silly.

robindch · 06-01-2014 10:09PM

The Black Oil wrote: »

'Claiming' the 90% as some sort of victory is silly.

Luke has something to say here about the church's claims:

Luke 16:10 wrote:

If a person is dishonest in little things, then he will be dishonest in big things too.

Penn · 06-01-2014 10:56PM

J C wrote: »

Why does it typically take hundreds of posts to establish anything ... even the most obvious of things ???

The Census is the most universal and professional count of the religious persuasion of the population of Ireland that can ever be done.

The last Census established that slightly over 90% of the population of Ireland professed themselves to be Christians and 0.1% professed themselves to be Atheists (following an extensive campaign by Atheist Ireland to encourage all Atheists to declare themselves as Atheists on the Census).

These are the hard figures ... and the hard reality for those who would like to think (or indeed wish) that we live in a 'post-Christian' Ireland.

To paraphrase Mark Twain ... rumours of the death of Christianity in Ireland are greatly exaggerated.:):D

... and to answer the OP the exact percentage of the population that is Christian is officially, according to the Census, 90.47%.

Here are the figures courtesy of Wikipedia

Religions in the Republic of Ireland, 2011
Religion Number Percent
Christianity 4,150,944 (90.47%)

Roman Catholic 3,861,335 (84.16%)
Church of Ireland 129,039 (2.81%)
Orthodox 45,223 (0.99%)
Presbyterian 24,600 (0.54%)
Apostolic/Pentecostal 14,043 (0.31%)
Methodist 6,842 (0.15%)
Jehovah's Witness 6,149 (0.13%)
Lutheran 5,683 (0.12%)
Protestant 5,326 (0.12%)
Evangelical 4,188 (0.09%)
Baptist 3,531 (0.08%)
Latter Day Saints (Mormon) 1,284 (0.03%)
Lapsed Roman Catholic 1,279 (0.03%)
Quaker (Society of Friends) 925 (0.02%)
Plymouth Brethren 336 (0.01%)
Other Christian religions 41,161 (0.9%)

Non-Christian religions 87,157 (1.9%)
Islam 49,204 (1.07%)
Hindu 10,688 (0.23%)
Buddhist 8,703 (0.19%)
Jewish 1,984 (0.04%)
Pantheist 1,940 (0.04%)
Bahá'í 520 (0.01%)
Other religions 14,118 (0.31%)

Non-religious and unanswered 350,151 (7.63%)
No Religion 269,811 (5.88%)
Atheist 3,905 (0.09%)
Agnostic 3,521 (0.08%)
Not answered 72,914 (1.59%)
Total 4,588,252 (100%)

... and the guys who say that it would break their granny's heart if they didn't declare themselves to be Christian on the Census seem to be forgetting that the Census is strictly confidential ... and their granny could never find out what they put on the Census, in the first place.
I'm also not persuaded by such claims ... because these people usually aren't particularly concerned about what their granny thinks about anything else they get up ... and they certainly don't consult their grannies about anything else they wish to do or say.

You're ignoring key factors when you say "professed themselves". The Census isn't filled out by each individual person, it's filled out by one person in each household at the time of the Census, representing each member of that household.

Firstly, most children are too young to choose a religion, that religion is chosen by the parents. So there's a big chunk taken out of the 90% already.

Secondly, as the country is so steeped in Catholicism, many people simply don't say they're atheist even though they are. I know. The 2001 and 2006 censuses I allowed myself to be marked down as RC even though I knew I didn't believe in God. Easier than causing an argument with the folks.

Thirdly, some people were marked down as RC against their own express wishes. Again, I know because it almost happened to me. I told my mother to put me down as No Religion, which she did after some hesitation. The next morning, I took a quick look at the Census and noticed my father had tried to change it to RC. Luckily, I managed to change it back and prevented it from being changed again. And I know a few other people who were marked down as RC despite having said they wanted to be out down as No Religion.

Now, would all that drop the 90% down below 50%? Of course not. But the point is, the Census is not the absolute truth. Anything which is filled out by people, can be filled out incorrectly by people, and human error increases when there are more humans involved.

People can shout 90% all they like. Doesn't make it correct.

Also, the 0.1% Atheist figure you quoted didn't take into consideration the No Religion figure. Regardless of whatever campaign Atheist Ireland ran (I don't know, I don't remember), no religion would account for most atheists too (as atheism is not a religion).

J C · 06-01-2014 11:24PM

Penncil Dick wrote: »

You're ignoring key factors when you say "professed themselves". The Census isn't filled out by each individual person, it's filled out by one person in each household at the time of the Census, representing each member of that household.

Firstly, most children are too young to choose a religion, that religion is chosen by the parents. So there's a big chunk taken out of the 90% already.

Secondly, as the country is so steeped in Catholicism, many people simply don't say they're atheist even though they are. I know. The 2001 and 2006 censuses I allowed myself to be marked down as RC even though I knew I didn't believe in God. Easier than causing an argument with the folks.

Thirdly, some people were marked down as RC against their own express wishes. Again, I know because it almost happened to me. I told my mother to put me down as No Religion, which she did after some hesitation. The next morning, I took a quick look at the Census and noticed my father had tried to change it to RC. Luckily, I managed to change it back and prevented it from being changed again. And I know a few other people who were marked down as RC despite having said they wanted to be out down as No Religion.

Now, would all that drop the 90% down below 50%? Of course not. But the point is, the Census is not the absolute truth. Anything which is filled out by people, can be filled out incorrectly by people, and human error increases when there are more humans involved.

People can shout 90% all they like. Doesn't make it correct.

Also, the 0.1% Atheist figure you quoted didn't take into consideration the No Religion figure. Regardless of whatever campaign Atheist Ireland ran (I don't know, I don't remember), no religion would account for most atheists too (as atheism is not a religion).

I agree that nothing is ever perfect ... but the Census is the most universal and professional count of the religious persuasion of the population of Ireland that can ever be done.

The 90% figure is a good 'ballpark' figure for the percentage of people who believe themselves to be Christians, in Ireland.

The 5.88% 'No religion' figure is quite interesting when contrasted with the 0.09% Atheist figure.
Ostensibly, as you say, they would appear to be same type of people with the same 'religious' outlook on life ... yet only 1.5% of people who have 'no religion' were prepared to call themselves 'Atheists'.
Could this be because most people who have 'no religion' aren't Atheists ... but people of faith who see themselves as attached to no particular religion or church?
... or do they not believe in God (in a whatever you're having yourself kind of way) ... but they consider 'Atheism' to be too anti-God for their liking?
... either way, the fact that Atheism was declared by less than 0.1% of the general population ... and even within the population of people declaring themselves to have 'no religion', Atheism was only declared by 1.5% of this cohort, is quite remarkable.
Atheists and Agnostics combined only account for 0.17% of the general population and, even more remarkably, they account for less than 3% of the people with 'no religion'.

Penn · 06-01-2014 11:44PM

J C wrote: »

I agree that nothing is ever perfect ... but the Census is the most universal and professional count of the religious persuasion of the population of Ireland that can ever be done.

The 90% figure is a good 'ballpark' figure for the percentage of people who believe themselves to be Christians, in Ireland.

The 5.88% 'No religion' figure is quite interesting when contrasted with the 0.09% Atheist figure.
Ostensibly, as you say, they would appear to be same people with the same 'religious' outlook on life ... yet only 1.5% of people who have 'no religion' were prepared to call themselves 'Atheists'.
Could this be because most people who have 'no religion' aren't Atheists ... but people of faith who see themselves as attached to no particular religion or church?
... or do they not believe in God (in a whatever you're having yourself kind of way) ... but they consider 'Atheism' to be too anti-God for their liking?
... either way, the fact that Atheism was declared by less than 0.1% of the general population ... and even within the population of people declaring themselves to have 'no religion', Atheism was only declared by 1.5% of this cohort, is quite remarkable.
Atheists and Agnostics combined only account for 0.17% of the general population and, even more remarkably, they account for less than 3% of the people with 'no religion'.

Again, you're separating two things which are technically the same. The question in the Census was "What is your religion?"

Atheism is not a religion, though people may have put it down to display that they don't follow a religion. No Religion would be comprised of atheists in general. But both Atheism and No Religion essentially mean the same thing (likewise how you're saying 90% but that encompasses many different types of Christianity even though there were separate answers). No Religion and Atheism are the same thing (to the extent that further distinguishing between the two or any specific reason why you'd pick one choice over the other would have been irrelevant to the Census).

Also, I just looked it up. Atheist Ireland didn't ask people to put down Atheist. They campaigned for people to simply be honest on the Census and not put down an answer which wasn't really true (again, tying into my comments about putting down RC when I knew I wasn't, or my father trying to put me down as RC against my wishes).

Days 298 · 06-01-2014 11:52PM

The idea that only less than a fifth of 1% of the population does not believe in God is a joke.

The census has me marked as Catholic for reasons I shall not divulge. The census is a pain to fill out. If religion plays little role in your life and you were baptised why bother thinking about it. Tick Catholic and move on. No ones going to question you. And it is the first choice on the form!

I don't think the census should contain a religion question same as France. The government shouldn't need to know as it should have zero influence in future planning and running of the state.

Hotblack Desiato · 07-01-2014 12:32AM

J C wrote: »

I agree that nothing is ever perfect ... but the Census is the most universal and professional count of the religious persuasion of the population of Ireland that can ever be done.

Nonsense. The question asked is both vague, and leading. It makes no attempt to explain whether it is asking about background, culture, belief or practice.

The 90% figure is a good 'ballpark' figure for the percentage of people who believe themselves to be Christians, in Ireland.

No, it's really not.
One would be quite correct in ticking the RC box if baptised RC, irrespective of one's current belief or practice. After all, they won't let me leave...

The 5.88% 'No religion' figure is quite interesting when contrasted with the 0.09% Atheist figure.

It is a meaningless distinction. Atheists have no religion.
You are also comparing a tick-box with a write-in term. A write-in term is always going to be far lower.
I'm an atheist, but ticked 'no religion', that doesn't make me any less an atheist, just someone who dislikes having to write something in when I can tick a box that means the same thing.

Could this be because most people who have 'no religion' aren't Atheists ... but people of faith who see themselves as attached to no particular religion or church?

Really clutching at straws here. Why wouldn't such a person just describe themselves as christian?

smacl · 07-01-2014 07:47AM

Days 298 wrote: »

I don't think the census should contain a religion question same as France. The government shouldn't need to know as it should have zero influence in future planning and running of the state.

I actually think it should contain additional questions. For everyone, do they support separation of church and state? For those who state that they are religious, how many times per year on average they attend their church service?

Basically, even though many people identify as Christian very many will still be secularist. Of those who identify as religious, it would be worth knowing how many actually practice their religion.

A national census is a rare enough opportunity to gather information, and IMHO the value returned should be maximised. I'm not a fan of not asking a question because you'd rather not know the answer.

smacl · 07-01-2014 07:50AM

robindch wrote: »

When people apply it to themselves without consulting the group that owns and defines the term, but which group is still willing to use their votes to boost its own importance, in the full knowledge that it's entirely dishonest to do so.

Great point. Would using the term Atheist as a proper noun also fit the above?

Brown Bomber · 07-01-2014 11:31AM

Penncil Dick wrote: »

That doesn't answer my question. Why should he specifically have to mention Jesus or Christianity? Just because most people in Ireland are Christian and Christmas stems from Christianity doesn't mean he needs to specifically mention either of those facts in his speech. It's not like he referred to Christmas as Festivus or anything. He wasn't trying to dispute the dictionary definition of Christmas.

If the majority of Irish people are Christian, and Christmas is historically a Christian celebration, then why would he need to specifically point out either of those facts in his speech?

More pertinently:

"If the majority of Irish people are Christian, and Christmas is historically a Christian celebration, then why would he need to specifically point out either of those facts in his CHRISTMAS speech?"

If it was any other address other than the Christian one I would agree with you. There are obvious reasons to mention Christ in his CHRISTmas speech. Just as he wore a Kippah in the Synagouge and addressed his Ramadam message to Muslims.

It would be ridiculous if he addressed his Ramadam message to "the people of Ireland". Christmas is partially different in that it has become a celebration by non-Christians; but only partially different. It's foundation is still Christian which can be seen with things like candles in the window, religious carols and the star of Bethlehem on top of the tree.

Christmas is a prime example of how the differences in Ireland between Christians and non-Christians is not so great, how we can live in harmony. How atheists and Christians alike can embrace Christian traditions and merge them with secular traditions without being pschyologically scarred.

Brown Bomber · 07-01-2014 11:40AM

Penncil Dick wrote: »

People can shout 90% all they like. Doesn't make it correct.

Specifically what is correct then?

I don't think that anyone has said that the census, or any census is 100% perfect. However, it is far, far closer to being perfect than anything else available.

We can't just speculate on anecdotal evidence, and "no religion" is an ambigious term. It could as you say, mean atheist, equally it could be a person with full faith in God or Gods who doesn't associate with any organised religion.

Floraidh · 07-01-2014 11:40AM

Since anytime I tried to reply to a topic on religion and my replies are not going up on the forum.Does that mean my free speech is been curb here?? Just a guess since my last 3 attempts told I have not loaded/log on/wait/wait again and reload. I have given up on replying to any post here.This has been happening all the time.

wretcheddomain · 07-01-2014 11:47AM

It's painfully obvious that the 90% figure is pure fiction (as elucidated by Pencil Dick & Co.) and just shows how desperate some people are, indeed, how faithful they are that the evidence conforms to them and not reality. Have we seen this phenomena somewhere before? :rolleyes:

Bannasidhe · 07-01-2014 11:54AM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

More pertinently:

"If the majority of Irish people are Christian, and Christmas is historically a Christian celebration, then why would he need to specifically point out either of those facts in his CHRISTMAS speech?"

If it was any other address other than the Christian one I would agree with you. There are obvious reasons to mention Christ in his CHRISTmas speech. Just as he wore a Kippah in the Synagouge and addressed his Ramadam message to Muslims.

It would be ridiculous if he addressed his Ramadam message to "the people of Ireland". Christmas is partially different in that it has become a celebration by non-Christians; but only partially different. It's foundation is still Christian which can be seen with things like candles in the window, religious carols and the star of Bethlehem on top of the tree.

Christmas is a prime example of how the differences in Ireland between Christians and non-Christians is not so great, how we can live in harmony. How atheists and Christians alike can embrace Christian traditions and merge them with secular traditions without being pschyologically scarred.

No It's foundation is not Christian. This is the point you are completely ignoring.

It's foundation is pre-Christian. It was co-opted in the 4th century by Rome and Christianised - now it is being co-opted as a general winter festival so when Christians complain what they are essentially saying is 'how dare people steal this ancient mid-winter festival which we stole in the first place.'

If Rome had decided to celebrate the Birth of Jesus in September there would still be a mid-winter festival as there has been for thousands of years. And it would contain many of those things which you are claiming as specifically 'Christian' like candles, trees etc plus those Xmas carols are actually Victorian re-wordings of far older (non-religious' songs. In fact - this 'traditional' Xmas you are blathering on about is pretty much a Victorian invention in the first place!

Tell me - did you have an issue with the previous president not mentioning Christ in her Xmas addresses to the nation?

As for this 90% figure you are so fond of quoting - this means that 10% of the population is not Christian - roughly the same as is not Heterosexual. Can we therefore expect you to be complaining if the President doesn't specifically mention the Straight People of Ireland in future?

Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

Comments