I'd like to wish ye all

branie2

A very happy St Patrick's Day

harrylittle

But is st patrick happy with ireland these days !

Cabaal

harrylittle wrote: »

But is st patrick happy with ireland these days !

Yep, very.
he was very unhappy with the period between around 1920 to 1996 though

harrylittle

i doubt st Patrick would be to happy

Ireland is almost a pagan nation once again as like before the days of st Patrick.

Churches are near empty whats there are mostly over 60's

christianity is taken out of schools and now hospitals

smacl

harrylittle wrote: »

i doubt st Patrick would be to happy

I don't know. He was Welsh after all and they seemed to do pretty well at the weekend :P

troyzer

harrylittle wrote: »

i doubt st Patrick would be to happy

Ireland is almost a pagan nation once again as like before the days of st Patrick.

Churches are near empty whats there are mostly over 60's

christianity is taken out of schools and now hospitals

It's almost as if an increase in education and prosperity have led people to question what authority figures told them.

branie2

harrylittle wrote: »

i doubt st Patrick would be to happy

Ireland is almost a pagan nation once again as like before the days of st Patrick.

Churches are near empty whats there are mostly over 60's

christianity is taken out of schools and now hospitals

I'm nearly 40 and I still go to Mass

smacl

branie2 wrote: »

I'm nearly 40 and I still go to Mass

It would be interesting to see what the current demographics look like. According to Wikipedia mass attendance in Ireland has dropped from 91% in 1973 to 30% in 2011. I see Diarmuid Martin was back in the news yesterday talking about the crisis in faith in this country.

Markcheese

harrylittle wrote: »

i doubt st Patrick would be to happy

Ireland is almost a pagan nation once again as like before the days of st Patrick.

Churches are near empty whats there are mostly over 60's

christianity is taken out of schools and now hospitals

Was there much christianity in the schools, hospitals and institutions in the first place?

I don't think there's much difference in people now, and people 30/40 years ago, probably a little less unthinking religious babble, and unthinking deference,

Incidentally I'd rather medicine in a hospital rather than religion..

El_Duderino 09

smacl wrote: »

It would be interesting to see what the current demographics look like. According to Wikipedia mass attendance in Ireland has dropped from 91% in 1973 to 30% in 2011. I see Diarmuid Martin was back in the news yesterday talking about the crisis in faith in this country.

91% or people couldn't have actually believed in catholicism. Lots of people only went to mass because it was expected. Wouldn't the catholics be happier with 30% of people going to mass if they actually believe and want to be there?

Surely the catholics don't want atheists going to mass just to get the numbers up

Peregrinus

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

91% or people couldn't have actually believed in catholicism.

Why not?

El_Duderino 09

Peregrinus wrote: »

Why not?

I think it’s highly unlikely that all those who attended mass would actually be there because they believed. When you consider the social and cultural pressure to attend mass, I think it’s fair to assume that not all 91% of the population believed And some went to mass because of the pressure to go to mass rather than belief.

With that said, indoctrination into catholicism was much stronger back then too so presumably more people were believer then than now. But I find it impossibly to believe that there weren’t people who attended mass for societal reasons.

What do you think?

Peregrinus

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think it’s highly unlikely that all those who attended mass would actually be there because they believed. When you consider the social and cultural pressure to attend mass, I think it’s fair to assume that not all 91% of the population believed And some went to mass because of the pressure to go to mass rather than belief.

With that said, indoctrination into catholicism was much stronger back then too so presumably more people were believer then than now. But I find it impossibly to believe that there weren’t people who attended mass for societal reasons.

What do you think?

I don't think it's a simple binary. You could believe more or less of the beliefs presented by the Catholic church; those which you did believe you could believe with a greater or lesser degree of conviction/hesitation; the beliefs which you did hold might be more or less important to you and your life in practice. Partly because belief was inculturated, expected, all but universal and marker of identity/belonging, a great many people may not have been motivated to examine their own beliefs in any great detail, or at all.

I agree, a 91% (or whatever) mass attendance rate can't be treated as a proxy for a 91% belief rate. But equally its an oversimplification (to be kind) to say that 91% of the population "can't have believed" in Catholicism. I don't think we can meaningfully talk of the percentage of a population that can or cannot believe something.

El_Duderino 09

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think it's a simple binary. You could believe more or less of the beliefs presented by the Catholic church; those which you did believe you could believe with a greater or lesser degree of conviction/hesitation; the beliefs which you did hold might be more or less important to you and your life in practice. Partly because belief was inculturated, expected, all but universal and marker of identity/belonging, a great many people may not have been motivated to examine their own beliefs in any great detail, or at all.

I agree, a 91% (or whatever) mass attendance rate can't be treated as a proxy for a 91% belief rate. But equally its an oversimplification (to be kind) to say that 91% of the population "can't have believed" in Catholicism. I don't think we can meaningfully talk of the percentage of a population that can or cannot believe something.

Mass attendance can’t be used as a proxy for belief rate. Belief rate is likely to be much lower than mass attendance because of the pressures to attend mass. In the past those pressures were applied to the entire population. Now those pressures are only applied to people in catholic families, children attending catholic schools etc. Hence attendance has dropped because the people who attend mass are under much less pressure to do so. The main pressure people have to attend mass is if the actually believe and want to attend mass.

Peregrinus

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Mass attendance can’t be used as a proxy for belief rate. Belief rate is likely to be much lower than mass attendance because of the pressures to attend mass. In the past those pressures were applied to the entire population. Now those pressures are only applied to people in catholic families, children attending catholic schools etc. Hence attendance has dropped because the people who attend mass are under much less pressure to do so. The main pressure people have to attend mass is if the actually believe and want to attend mass.

You're correct to say that mass attendance was supported by social factors. But you're overlooking the fact that belief would also have been affected by social factors. The changing social/cultural environment has likely led to a decline in both.

El_Duderino 09

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're correct to say that mass attendance was supported by social factors. But you're overlooking the fact that belief would also have been affected by social factors. The changing social/cultural environment has likely led to a decline in both.

I’m pretty sure I said that there’s less indoctrination now than there was in the past. Less indoctrination lead to less belief

Peregrinus

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I’m pretty sure I said that there’s less indoctrination now than there was in the past. Less indoctrination lead to less belief

Sorry, but are you not arguing against yourself there? If there was more Catholic indoctrination in the past, would that not suggest that Catholic belief would have been higher?

El_Duderino 09

Peregrinus wrote: »

Sorry, but are you not arguing against yourself there? If there was more Catholic indoctrination in the past, would that not suggest that Catholic belief would have been higher?

Catholic belief would have been Higher due to Indoctrination, yes. Also social pressure to go to mass was greater which means the people who were unsuccessfully indoctrinated were not free to simply not go to mass without social repercussions

So higher but lower than the 91% who went to mass. Simple enough. I’ve said this in the posts above.

branie2

All I wanted to do was wish you all a Happy St Patrick's day, not start a debate on Church decline :rolleyes:

harrylittle

Markcheese wrote: »

Was there much christianity in the schools, hospitals and institutions in the first place?

I don't think there's much difference in people now, and people 30/40 years ago, probably a little less unthinking religious babble, and unthinking deference,

Incidentally I'd rather medicine in a hospital rather than religion..

I'd much rather save my soul than my body ... the body only last for so many years the soul lasts forever

Cabaal

harrylittle wrote: »

I'd much rather save my soul than my body ... the body only last for so many years the soul lasts forever

Grand so, next time you go into hospital the doctors can just stand around you and pray.

No need to intervene in any health issue you might have using actual medical knowledge, sure whatever happens is your gods will eh?

Tacklebox

Popcorn on hand

Tacklebox

branie2 wrote: »

All I wanted to do was wish you all a Happy St Patrick's day, not start a debate on Church decline :rolleyes:

See what happens when you have great intentions.
Then you've the usual pattern of people who will use your good nature to start a debate about devine intervention and undermining people's beliefs.

Just show's the logic of some people.

harrylittle

Cabaal wrote: »

Grand so, next time you go into hospital the doctors can just stand around you and pray.

No need to intervene in any health issue you might have using actual medical knowledge, sure whatever happens is your gods will eh?

It does happen check out the last reformation on u tube.

... But its good to have both in a hospital .... if the medicine fails .. at least your covered with the other ... unless atheist ireland get their way and remove christianity from the hospitals

Cabaal

harrylittle wrote: »

It does happen check out the last reformation on u tube.

... But its good to have both in a hospital .... if the medicine fails .. at least your covered with the other ...

So why not hedge your bets further if that is your approach, hospitals should have religious symbols for scientology, Mormons and other religions.... If medicine fails......

If you are going to demand tax payer money is spent on religion its wrong to give priority to one over the rest.

harrylittle

Cabaal wrote: »

So why not hedge your bets further if that is your approach, hospitals should have religious symbols for scientology, Mormons and other religions.... If medicine fails......

If you are going to demand tax payer money is spent on religion its wrong to give priority to one over the rest.

If muslums, mormons or any other religion when out and built a hospital its only fair that they be allowed to display their religious symbols in that hospital ... it would be that hospitals religious ethos.

As the catholic church built the majority of hospitals in this country especially at a time when this country had no money its only right that they should display christian religious symbols.

As for tax payers money .... when the nuns were in charge they ran the hospitals on a tight budget and when the nuns were replaced they had to bring in expensive multi layered management to cover the work the nuns used to do for half nothing ... costing the taxpayer a fortune in extra health care costs.