Athiests - Who cares

Grayson

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes, the size of Kim Kardashian's arse was something everyone needed to know... :pac:

Religion isn't going anywhere, and while people have access to more information than ever before, religions are keeping step with technology and society just as much as anyone else - can't make it to mass? No worries, you can catch it broadcast live on the Internet is just one example.

People's consciousness' are being shrunk just as much as they're being expanded, because while the information is all out there, it's the people themselves who decide what information they choose to seek out, and what information they choose to ignore.

Religion is disappearing in the western world. many European countries have more atheists than theists. In ireland it can be seen that mass attendance is less than a third of what it was in the 70's.
Whilst i don't think religion will disappear completely I do think it will become more of a niche thing. Christians in the developed world will be a minority in 100 years time and not through the actions of atheists but simply because they'll just wander away from the church. It's just going to be a continuation of the last 30 years.

Kidchameleon

Grayson wrote: »

Richard Dawkins has nothing on the venom that comes out of these groups.

I take it your not aware of his stance on Downs syndrome?

Grayson wrote: »

I've never seen an atheist on here say anything about being offended if someone says "bless you"or "happy xmas" or anything like that.

See thread titled: "Say a prayer for me now, don't save it until the morning after"

Grayson wrote: »

However if I were to be in a group of random Catholics and say "God doesn't exist" you can be certain that probably half of them would take offence at it.

I cant think of any reason to say something like that in the situation you describe other than to cause offense.

DamagedTrax

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I cant think of any reason to say something like that in the situation you describe other than to cause offense.

open minded debate?

DamagedTrax

DamagedTrax wrote: »

maybe wherever you're from, im not doubting that.

but in my parent's local church you'd be hard pressed to find 50 people at a mass. the priest would be the youngest in the room. and we're possibly one of the biggest single church areas (ie 1 church serves the entire area).

i dont know anybody who goes to mass. i dont know anyone who doesnt look at the catholic church with disdain.

im presuming you're rural? (apologies for the assumption).

Yeah I'm from a rural area but live in the city at the moment so end up going to a mix of churches in the city and then the local ones at home. The attendance in mass in the small town near my house would be higher than what I'd encounter in the city though I stand by the fact that there are bigger number attending now in the city churches than a few years ago.

As for my home area there are 4 churches all withn about 10 mins drive of each other so plenty of masses in the church in the town on a Sunday morning you would have the guts of 50 people standing at the back of the church alone and if late you would be looking at the top couple of rows of seats if you want to sit down. It's also note worthy that Christmas Eve mass this year in the country church closest to my home was as busy as most can remember even going back many many years. There were probably 20 people standing outside in the car park such was the crowd.

I'm honestly speaking from what I've experienced and of course I acknowledge that attendance is way down on what it was 20 years ago but I do feel it dipped and has made a slight recovery recently.

Zubeneschamali

Corbin Silly Pan wrote: »

How disgusted would you be if it did turn out to be the national trend that what I want to know :pac:

No skin off my nose. Very boring for the kids dragged along, though, from what I remember. I used to play games to pass the tedious hour a week.

If sitting near a brass plaque on the pew, I'd count occurrences of each letter, and try and make a list in my head of the letters of the alphabet not in the "In memory of..." message.

Or I'd stare at something like the BVM statue without moving head or eyes. Your vision kind of saturates, and then when you do move a little, everything gets a halo effect.

BBDBB

DamagedTrax wrote: »

open minded debate?

would you describe the stances taken in this and other similar topic threads as "open minded"?


I certainly wouldn't.

dutopia

kneemos wrote: »

Atheism is flawed logic as it rules out the possibility of the unexplained and as any scientist will tell you their whole life is devoted to the unexplained.

You might want to check your understanding of what Atheism is.

Sofiztikated

kneemos wrote: »

If my belief causes me to do a good deed or not have sex with my neighbours wife then my belief becomes a fact .

Your belief is a fact, yes, but what you believe in, no.

Corbin Silly Pan wrote: »

Just because you refuse to believe in the truth behind Christmas (and the catholic faith in general) in no way makes it a lie and in fact you have no right making accusations like that. Religion is an important part of a child's upbringing and I pity the children who are born into atheist familys and denied it.

The truth behind Christmas? Which truth is that? The truth behind the tree? Or the truth behind the feast? Or the truth behind the fact that even Christian scholars agree on that the dates are arseways.

And the truth in the catholic faith? Well, damn, isn't it lucky you were born in the right country, and your parents were of the right faith. What about someone in this country born, baptised and raised Church of Ireland, or Presbyterian, or Methodist? (If you had said Christianity, you could have included all of the above, but apparently being a Catholic is more important than being a Christian.)

Corbin Silly Pan wrote: »

Christmas is very much about the above for children and much of it for adults too but there is no need to forget the religious side of it either including the crib, Christmas mass etc.



Of course its important for them to be brought up as Catholics. Thankfully in this country the vast majority of schools are catholic schools and teach it so some might pick it up who dont get it at home.

Again, what of those that have a different faith? Should they be getting it at school?

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Local meetings of what, just out of interest?
Attendance at even daily masses in our local are up and weddings have exploded. Great to see people coming back.

Weddings are up. Weddings numbers always rise when there is a recession. Things are cheaper. Of those that are getting married, I'd love to know how many return to that church in the next month. The big church wedding, the dress, the cars, etc. These are social norms, they are to be expected. Have a look over at the Wedding forum. There's a woman there in tears because she told her family that her and her partner didn't want a big church wedding, and the family had a **** fit. It's nothing to do with religion. It's about what "the done thing" is.

One eyed Jack

Ush1 wrote: »

The very fact the information is accessible will change things. I seriously doubt many people are watching mass broadcast on the internet. I would even doubt many watch it on RTE, which has been on years.

But you now have the likes of Richard Dawkins on the Late Late show, doing talks in the RDS, tweeting from Sam Harris, the Young Turks, etc....

Just as Kodak tried to cling to a redundant tech, the world around the religious will change and it will be gone eventually.

Richard Dawkins if I remember rightly was on the Late Late over 20 years ago? He's only one person, albeit one of the most prominent and outspoken anti-theists in modern times. He has written some fantastic books, certainly, but how many people do you honestly think have ever taken the time to read Dawkins books, as opposed to the numbers of people who read the Bible regularly?

If you wanted to use a real example of a business which evolved to come back from the brink, think Apple, now one of the largest tech companies in the world after they almost went under a decade ago.

Nozzferahtoo isn't too far wrong in comparing religion to a business nowadays, it really is (I would argue it always was, if you go back through the history of some of the main religions), and this is something Richard Dawkins observed in America where Evangelical Christian Churches are big, big business, with their own tv channels that would make the RTE budget look like the petty cash tin!

If you want to talk about social media, Richard Dawkins has one million followers, Pope Francis has TEN times that. Richard Dawkins has been spearheading the OUT campaign, an idea they borrowed from the LGBT community to encourage atheists to "come out", meanwhile Pope Francis has been in talks with the heads of the RCC in Brazil with a view to allowing for priests to marry and for married men to become priests, because there simply isn't enough clergy to serve the numbers of Roman Catholics there.

Now, that's only Roman Catholicism, we haven't even touched on Islam, Buddhism, Voodoo, Chinese traditional, Judaism, or any of the other thousands of religious denominations in Christianity alone (not to mention that Scientology recently became a recognized religion in the UK, and has been attracting celebrities in the US for decades, and that's a very young religion!).

I guess you could say religious people are fooling themselves, but anyone who thinks religion is going anywhere? Well...

Ireland has of course been abandoning religion for a number of years now, but I've said it before and I'll say it again - even if everyone in Ireland were an atheist and we became a completely secular country, it would have a barely noticeable impact on the figures of religious people worldwide! Irish people are abandoning the Church, but they're much slower to abandon the ideological label of Roman Catholic.

Zubeneschamali

Grayson wrote: »

Whilst i don't think religion will disappear completely I do think it will become more of a niche thing.

There seemed to be some suggestions from the Rome under Der Fuhrer Ratzinger that it would be cool to drag the church back to 1940 or so, and let all the happy-clappy folk mass crowd feck off, leaving a smaller, more committed, more insane core behind.

But Bergoglio seems to be keen on going back a further, to some of the stuff some Jewish guy called Jesus is supposed to have taught.

DamagedTrax

BBDBB wrote: »

would you describe the stances taken in this and other similar topic threads as "open minded"?


I certainly wouldn't.

probably not. but the poster claimed there was no situation where saying 'god doesnt exist', to a group of christians, would be meant to cause anything but offense. they didnt ask about boards.ie or any thread in particular.

in the real world, claiming 'god doesnt exist' can be done in many situations that shouldnt cause offense to open minded, articulate people (just as when somebody tells me 'i should have faith in god', i dont have a fit and claim it as an afront to my entire being!).

unfortunately it usually does cause offense in spite of context. go figure.

Ush1

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Richard Dawkins if I remember rightly was on the Late Late over 20 years ago? He's only one person, albeit one of the most prominent and outspoken anti-theists in modern times. He has written some fantastic books, certainly, but how many people do you honestly think have ever taken the time to read Dawkins books, as opposed to the numbers of people who read the Bible regularly?

If you wanted to use a real example of a business which evolved to come back from the brink, think Apple, now one of the largest tech companies in the world after they almost went under a decade ago.

Nozzferahtoo isn't too far wrong in comparing religion to a business nowadays, it really is (I would argue it always was, if you go back through the history of some of the main religions), and this is something Richard Dawkins observed in America where Evangelical Christian Churches are big, big business, with their own tv channels that would make the RTE budget look like the petty cash tin!

If you want to talk about social media, Richard Dawkins has one million followers, Pope Francis has TEN times that. Richard Dawkins has been spearheading the OUT campaign, an idea they borrowed from the LGBT community to encourage atheists to "come out", meanwhile Pope Francis has been in talks with the heads of the RCC in Brazil with a view to allowing for priests to marry and for married men to become priests, because there simply isn't enough clergy to serve the numbers of Roman Catholics there.

Now, that's only Roman Catholicism, we haven't even touched on Islam, Buddhism, Voodoo, Chinese traditional, Judaism, or any of the other thousands of religious denominations in Christianity alone (not to mention that Scientology recently became a recognized religion in the UK, and has been attracting celebrities in the US for decades, and that's a very young religion!).

I guess you could say religious people are fooling themselves, but anyone who thinks religion is going anywhere? Well...

Ireland has of course been abandoning religion for a number of years now, but I've said it before and I'll say it again - even if everyone in Ireland were an atheist and we became a completely secular country, it would have a barely noticeable impact on the figures of religious people worldwide! Irish people are abandoning the Church, but they're much slower to abandon the ideological label of Roman Catholic.

I didn't say religion was dead now, I said it is dying and will die over time.

The fact you mentioned an anti-theist has one million followers on a social media network which broadcasts to the world is astounding in itself, could you have said that ten years ago?

Erm, Dawkins was on the late late after the release of the greatest show on earth, which was published in 2009 so you are a bit off with your dates there. He may have even been on since, not that it really matters anyway.

Religion has always been a business, and as I said, like Kodak it is a dying one.

SpaceTime

If I lived in say, France or a country that guaranteed freedom of and from religion I wouldn't have any issue with saying atheists don't need to drone on.

Ireland however needs plenty of athiest lecturing! Until a few years ago it was practically a theocracy in all but name.

It's moved along a lot towards normality but, you've still got to deal with 96% of the school system being fully religious, religious public services etc etc

Blasphemy laws that were only introduced a few years ago and made us an international laughing stock.

Irish athiests still have a lot of justifiable moaning to do and I think it's very important that they do it.

One eyed Jack

Ush1 wrote: »

I didn't say religion was dead now, I said it is dying and will die over time.

There's a difference between opinion and fact. If you have any facts or actual evidence to support your claims, I'm all ears.

The fact you mentioned an anti-theist has one million followers on a social media network which broadcasts to the world is astounding in itself, could you have said that ten years ago?

Of course I could, could've said it 20 years ago too when I used have these discussions on Usenet newsgroups, long before Web 2.0 technology. One million followers on Twitter is nothing, a mere drop in the ocean, and even Twitter itself isn't all that big compared to some of the bigger and more popular social networks in China and India (that's over 2billion of the word's population there, just to put that 1million figure in perspective).

Erm, Dawkins was on the late late after the release of the greatest show on earth, which was published in 2009 so you are a bit off with your dates there. He may have even been on since, not that it really matters anyway.

You're right, I'm way off in my dates, he was on the Late Late when Gay Byrne was presenting the show. That was when the Late Late show was actually worth watching, when Gay Byrne regularly had discussions on religion in Ireland and tore strips out of the RCC Hierarchy. He took Cathal Daly down a peg or two, exposed Eamonn Casey, Michael Cleary, and many, many more. He had guests like the Monty Python crew on when The Life of Brian was banned in Ireland. Gay Byrne was also instrumental in exposing the systematic abuses in the RCC in Ireland.

Ryan Tubridy is only a fawning idiot in comparison!

Religion has always been a business, and as I said, like Kodak it is a dying one.

Again, evidence would be nice. Kodak would be the equivalent of one single religious denomination, it doesn't mean photography is a dying business.

Ush1

Ush1 wrote: »

I didn't say religion was dead now, I said it is dying and will die over time.

Just because you want this to happen does not mean it will happen. You have no idea what will happen over the next 50 or 100 years. Religion could grow and grow again and becuase more popular than it is today. Religion has been around for 1000's of years its going nowhere.

SpaceTime wrote: »

Irish athiests still have a lot of justifiable moaning to do and I think it's very important that they do it.

Why? Let them mind their own business and stop sticking their nose where its not wanted.

Maximus Alexander

Corbin Silly Pan wrote: »

Why? Let them mind their own business and stop sticking their nose where its not wanted.

The rest of the post that you dutifully ignored and cut from your quote explains why their moaning is, in this case, minding their own business.

Grayson

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I take it your not aware of his stance on Downs syndrome?



See thread titled: "Say a prayer for me now, don't save it until the morning after"



I cant think of any reason to say something like that in the situation you describe other than to cause offense.

I know Richard Dawkins is a dick but he's got nothing on those groups. A girl I know commented on a post about the brain dead woman in Ireland who was pregnant. She just said that it's a pity the foetus was never viable and that the woman died but at least it was all over now and she hoped the womans family were suffering less. There's nothing really offensive in that post. Some of the replies she got were along the lines of "I hope you get raped and then miscarry so you'll know what it feels like". It's was really really nasty.

btw, Dawkins clarified to say that aborting because downs is detected is a valid reason. He said it's just so much a burden to society and to individuals that he thinks the smart decision is to terminate the pregnancy early. Coming from someone that is pro choice, that isn't a horrible thing. Remember that article by the woman who had a downs son years ago (it was in the telegraph or mail)? she described how it had totally fcuked up her life. It's caused her so much hardship and pain.
Deciding to terminate a pregnancy for that reason is valid as far as I'm concerned. If you have the option not to sign up for all that and you take it, that's your choice. Likewise it's ok to go ahead if that's what the woman wants.
Expressing that kind of logical opinion, whilst it is something pro life people would disagree with, is nothing radical. (However it's an argument for another thread and I remember a thread about it. We probably argued there )

Maximus Alexander

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

The rest of the post that you dutifully ignored and cut from your quote explains why their moaning is, in this case, minding their own business.

All the stuff in the post shouldn't change just for a small number of athiests. Remember 83% of the country are catholic, then we have other religions meaning atheists are a tiny minority.

AH of course give the impression that there are a large number due to the number posting here but as with a lot of things AH gives a poor reflection of actual society.

Maximus Alexander

Corbin Silly Pan wrote: »

Remember 83% of the country are catholic, then we have other religions meaning atheists are a tiny minority.

Remember, you made this up.

DamagedTrax

Corbin Silly Pan wrote: »

Remember 83% of the country are catholic

maybe 83% (surely not) are baptised, that doesnt mean they're catholic.

just because i stick my head under water and proclaim that im a fish, it doesnt mean im actually a fish.

Maximus Alexander

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Remember, you made this up.

DamagedTrax wrote: »

maybe 83% are baptised, that doesnt mean they're catholic.

just because i stick my head under water and proclaim that im a fish, it doesnt mean im actually a fish.

The census is the official way the country finds out this information and according to the census 83% of people in Ireland are catholic.

The government can quite legitimately hold up the census and say that the country is more than 3/4 catholic and therefore things like catholic schools etc should obviously remain.

Its hilarious how people want rid of catholic schools here when in places like the UK people jump through every hoop imaginable to get into them as they are far better schools.

Baggy Trousers

DamagedTrax wrote: »

maybe 83% (surely not) are baptised, that doesnt mean they're catholic.

just because i stick my head under water and proclaim that im a fish, it doesnt mean im actually a fish.

Careful, Ismael Freezing Tv now believes you are a fish.

DamagedTrax

Corbin Silly Pan wrote: »

The census is the official way the country finds out this information and according to the census 83% of people in Ireland are catholic.

The government can quite legitimately hold up the census and say that the country is more than 3/4 catholic and therefore things like catholic schools etc should obviously remain.

Its hilarious how people want rid of catholic schools here when in places like the UK people jump through every hoop imaginable to get into them as they are far better schools.

well there's about 3 to 4% of us that are officially jedi, if we are to take census figures seriously.

and on the schools, i have my kid in educate together now. he's getting a much better education and learns tolerance towards humanity instead of the fairytales and out dated rhetoric that i was forced to sit thru in the catholic system.

Maximus Alexander

Corbin Silly Pan wrote: »

The census is the official way the country finds out this information and according to the census 83% of people in Ireland are catholic.

So, as a catholic, would you agree that the only prerequisite for being a catholic is to say you are one?

DamagedTrax

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

So, as a catholic, would you agree that the only prerequisite for being a catholic is to say you are one?

unfortunately the census doesnt figure in the institutionalised guilt that's embedded in most of the population that experienced catholic ireland pre2000.

i know friends of my parents that dont havent been to a mass in years, dont like the catholic church, dont believe in a deity (although most are probably spiritual).. but they'll still write roman catholic on a form, without even thinking what they are writing.

DamagedTrax

DamagedTrax wrote: »

well there's about 3 to 4% of us that are officially jedi, if we are to take census figures seriously.

and on the schools, i have my kid in educate together now. he's getting a much better education and learns tolerance towards humanity instead of the fairytales and out dated rhetoric that i was forced to sit thru in the catholic system.

You have no way of knowing he is getting a better education, you dont know that he has better teachers than catholic schools in fact its unlikely he does and an hour here and there to lean about Catholicism is hardly eats up much time. Its also highly offensive to refer to it as fairytales.

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

So, as a catholic, would you agree that the only prerequisite for being a catholic is to say you are one?

Its the first step anyway, some may drift away and come back but if they identify as one then they are certainly going down the right road and making it know that they would like to continute the catholic ethos in the country.

Grayson

Corbin Silly Pan wrote: »

The point is that a few years ago attendances hit a low point and in the last few years numbers are up again.

There are a lot more people going to mass now than 5 years ago, in particular a lot more young people are starting to go again. It doesn't suit the agenda of vocal atheists so it will of course be ignored.

Do you have any sources that show this? It's just basing an argument of anecdotal evidence is flawed. I walk past my local church on the way home. I hardly see any young people going in. There's teenagers with parents in their late 40's and fifties but they're the only people I see under the age of 30 going in. I don't actually go in so I have no idea whether or not it's packed but I will say there seems to be a good number going in. It's just that most appear to be over 50.

Zubeneschamali

Corbin Silly Pan wrote: »

Its hilarious how people want rid of catholic schools here

The pressure to reduce the number of Catholic schools here is not coming from Atheist pressure groups, it's coming from parents.

Even the bishops admit that they are patrons of too many primary schools.

Atheists are a bit cross that there is no possibility of an actual secular school here - even the Educate Together schools are obliged to teach all religions, not none. The Primary School curriculum mandates 30 minutes a day. They have what, 4.5 hours a day of classes, and have to spend 10% of their time on this crap.

DamagedTrax

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

even the Educate Together schools are obliged to teach all religions, not none. The Primary School curriculum mandates 30 minutes a day. They have what, 4.5 hours a day of classes, and have to spend 10% of their time on this crap.

the ET system isnt a faith based learning. the kids learn about world religions, the different beliefs involved and the history. they dont say prayers or any of that bs.. and they are very easily excused from it if parents so wish.

any religious ceremonial stuff (communion etc) has to be specifically organised by parents out side of the school system (although the schools will alllow after school use of premises)

Maximus Alexander

Corbin Silly Pan wrote: »

Its the first step anyway, some may drift away and come back but if they identify as one then they are certainly going down the right road and making it know that they would like to continute the catholic ethos in the country.

Well in that case, I am a catholic, but I still believe in things like separation of church and state, equal marriage, and the need to direct public funding away from catholic schools and towards schools that do not teach religion as fact.

As such, your census figures do nothing to support your position that things should remain as is, because all people who identify as catholic agree with you. This is clearly not the case, I am proof of it.