Catholic Ireland dead? **Mod Warning in Post #563**

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121944984#Comment_121944984

Live and let live...when the same sex marriage referendum was on, we had religious groups telling us no and how gay people should live their lives. Same again with abortion, priests etc on prime time telling us again, how to live.

You might live and let live, I am sure you know full well that there are activist groups who will not do that, and will actively try to take a ruling hand over peoples lives. Be that catholic, muslim, whatever it may be.

Vote4Squirrels

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121946511#Comment_121946511

I had the same argument with the hard line as I’ve been an ally to the gay community for decades, holding the hand of a friend’s partner as AIDS took him too soon.

I campaigned for equal marriage and voted yes for Repeal. I’m sure some view me as a bad Catholic. I don’t care.

Extremists of any persuasion are dangerous and I’ll have no part of them.

Frank Bullitt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121946528#Comment_121946528

I genuinely applaud your position.

I will say, maybe unfortunately, that what I put forward as examples are not extremist at all, they would be very much inline with the current teachings of the church, or any other mainstream religion. Underneath it all, is still this archaic idea that we are created, not only that but created sick and commanded to be well, under pain of penance of being sent to hell should you not adhere to these rules.

My stance on religion is that it undermines us in our most basic existence. We are not created, we are evolved. It makes people use faith over reason, again a very primitive way to live ones life, especially in the face of the mountains of evidence to undermine the basic premise of the bible, or any holy book.

Vote4Squirrels

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121946610#Comment_121946610

Sadly I think you are right - I’ve always preferred to go with the “Jesus” teachings - don’t judge, preach love etc but I’m very aware that the party line is very different.

A lovely couple of guys I’m friends with had their marriage blessed (admittedly on the quiet) by a priest in the UK. I’d like to believe soon that will be the norm. Hopefully.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121944984#Comment_121944984

That, unfortunately, is not an option when said church campaigns for national decisions that include people who no longer or never did subscirbe to their faith. Why should abortion be banned for everyone when not everyone disagrees with it?

The other issue is education: if he can gave an equal education system with no requirmeents for birht certificates and no catholicism in classrooms, then we can agree to disagree.

YOU may live and let live, fair enough - but the Church does not.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121946787#Comment_121946787

It doesn’t because they have just as much right in a democratic society as any other civil rights organisation to opine on issues which are pertinent to Irish society. This particular numpty wouldn’t be out of place in Irish society today:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Creagh

We all had a bit of a chuckle at this particular space cadet:

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/kerry-priest-says-gay-politicians-going-to-hell-if-they-dont-repent-1386373.html

And in terms of education, well here’s a press write up on the independently funded ultra Catholic school you might not know (or care) exists:

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/munster/arid-41307634.html

As an independent school, the school is outside the remit of the Department of Education and does not have to follow the State curriculum.

That whole philosophy of “live and let live” is nothing more meaningful than a pitiful aphorism open to different interpretations, depending upon whom you’re talking to, or talking about:

The co-founder of the school Grace Cantillon-Murphy says in a YouTube recording on the school’s website that “there are so many conflicting messages in schools and society of, you know, you have your truth, I have my truth; I have to respect you and respect your truth but that is not the truth. The truth is the way that is Jesus Christ. He is the only truth.” 

silliussoddius

Always hilarious that people who complain about "my truth" want a free pass on Jesus truth.

The truth is the way that is Jesus Christ. He is the only truth.” 

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121946893#Comment_121946893

It’s a fairly transparent attempt to portray themselves as ‘objective’. As if! 😂

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121946886#Comment_121946886

NO organisation in a democratic society has a right to force or deny an action upon an entire nation based on their personal beliefs any more than I have a right to force or deny an action on them.

What the church is saying is "we want to ban everyone from having abortions" when it should be saying "we want to tell Catholics not to have abortions".

No idea what you're saying in the live and let live paragrepah and I'm not talking about independent schools.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121947031#Comment_121947031

That’s not what I said. The Church no more does “live and let live” than any other civil rights organisation in society in relation to decisions about public policy, whether that be in relation to law, education, politics, etc. That’s not saying they have a right to force or deny an action upon an entire nation, it’s making the point that they have the same right as any other organisation or individual to opine on matters of public interest.

In just the same way as you imagine what the Church should be saying, they have the right to ignore you and continue preaching what is in accordance with their beliefs, or teachings, or doctrine, etc. That’s what it means to live in a democratic society. That’s why I made the point that the philosophy of “live and let live” is nothing more meaningful than a pitiful aphorism - the person deploying it means “live in accordance with my beliefs and I’ll be happy”, as opposed to acknowledging the reality that nobody has to seek their permission to live however they want, as that individual or group just doesn’t have the authority or the ability to enforce their will on anyone, precisely because of that whole democratic society thing.

The point about independent schools was in response to your ideas about education - nobody has to seek your approval, so whether or not you agree or disagree, or agree to disagree, is of no consequence to them whatsoever. Even if they weren’t an independently funded school, they are entitled to apply for public funding as a recognised school in accordance with the rules of the existing patronage system, just like abortion is available as a public service in the public healthcare system, in spite of the objections from the Church and individuals who bang on about what “their” taxes are, or aren’t being spent on. If those people don’t like it, they have the same opportunity as anyone else to vote for political parties which align with their interests, or values, ideas or beliefs.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121947137#Comment_121947137

But if they're advocating taking rights away from someone else while defending it by saying that they have the right to free speech, then that would make them hypocrits. Civil rights organisations tend to be the other way around: they usually try to GET rights for people, not take them away from people.

Regarding education, I never objected to them recieving public funds - I object to them discriminating:

The other issue is education: if he can gave an equal education system with no requirmeents for birht certificates and no catholicism in classrooms, then we can agree to disagree.

If they are NOT recieving public funds, then sure - they can do as they please - but again, I'm not talking about independent schools.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121947187#Comment_121947187

It doesn’t make the Church a hypocrite? They’re exercising their Constitutionally guaranteed and protected freedom, same as every other civil rights organisation. Applying your logic concludes with this sort of silliness:

As regards education - they have the right to discriminate, a right embedded in the Constitution, recognised by the State, but I wouldn’t call you a hypocrite for trying to deprive them of that right, not because I think it would be silly, but because I’m absolutely certain you wouldn’t give a damn.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121947305#Comment_121947305

I'm not saying the can't, I'm saying the shouldn't; and if they do, they're hypocrits, so the meme is only accurate if you think I'm forcing cahtolics to personally endure sincul activities.

Beyond that, you're not actually disagreeing with me, you're advocating their right to dictate and discriminate, so I guess we're done here?

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121947513#Comment_121947513

The meme is accurate on the basis that by your determination, they are hypocrites because they’re not acting in accordance with your idea of live and let live. Who’s the hypocrite there really?

You haven’t gotten beyond that much yet, notwithstanding the fact that you must be aware that the majority of women seeking a termination of their pregnancy are Catholic, and I wouldn’t call them hypocrites. I’d understand you calling him a hypocrite if it was the priest who knocks up their housekeeper and then tells her to get an abortion because he’s not going to support his children as it would interfere with his preaching to the faithful about The Family.

I can’t say I’d be able to resist passing judgement on him either, much as my faith forbids it.

Shoog

The fact that there was 95% mass attendance is the 80s is testimement to the fact that if you failed to attend you were publicly condemned from the pulpit. The social pressure to conform was intense in 80s Ireland, and those who couldn't left.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121947622#Comment_121947622

Live and let live wasn't my post, it was someone else's - someone who subscribed to the catholic faith - so the meme is NOT accurate.

Your faith is just that - yours.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121948216#Comment_121948216

Quoting directly from your post:

YOU may live and let live, fair enough - but the Church does not.

Entirely accurate meme - ‘live and let live’, by your standards. That’s the quiet part you don’t say out loud, it’s just implied (by me, of course), because that’s the only basis upon which you can declare anyone a hypocrite. Which is fine by me btw, that’s entirely your own business.

’Snot just my faith either, objectively it is the faith, but I’ve no doubt you understood that much anyway given this particular conversation developed from the idea of the Bishops and/or the Church having the right to opine on social issues and attempt to influence law, politics, etc. Frankly I’d be surprised if they weren’t doing what the Church was established to do!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

In what way am i forcing the church to submit to my morals? I don't care what they teach to their believers. Are you supporting the freedom to oppress?

Hangdogroad

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121943685#Comment_121943685

Enoch Burke and his family arent Catholic.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121948848#Comment_121948848

I didn’t accuse you of attempting to force the Church to submit to your morals? You wouldn’t be able to point out what you see as their hypocrisy if believers lived their lives in accordance with your standards, so it’s to your benefit in that sense at least that they don’t.

Your question however, as to whether or not I support the freedom to oppress? Well that’s just bad faith argument, and you’d call it out as such were you in my position. It’s their freedom that you say they shouldn’t have, is what I support, and by that I mean it goes back to what you declare the Church shouldn’t be doing. I’m certain they’re not taking notes.

Vote4Squirrels

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121949088#Comment_121949088

Thank God!!! Pun intended!!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121949261#Comment_121949261

Then can you, once and for all, in once concise sentence and without stupid vague Spiderman memes, pointless links, or unnessecarily wordly paragraphs, PLEASE tell me where I'm being a hypocrit?

I don't care what the church tells it's followers to do - and I've said that more than once. And I don't tell their followers what to do.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121949413#Comment_121949413

Couldn’t be any more simple - you claim “live and let live - fair enough”, but don’t actually practice what you preach, so to speak.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121949646#Comment_121949646

Yeah, I asked you to explain, not say the same thing again.

I assumed you were saying (wrongly) that I was forcing my will on the church, but apparently not. So where's the hypocracy? How am I not practicing?

Hawkeye123

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121949261#Comment_121949261

Can you quote me when you say something about me. Otherwise I won't understand why you are making all those assertions.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121949877#Comment_121949877

You also asked for the explanation to be concise, which limits my ability to explain, but that notwithstanding, it’s very simple:

My understanding of anyone who espouses the philosophy of “live and let live”, is that they do not concern themselves with in this particular instance whatever the Church does or does not do, regardless of whatever the doctrines of their faith demand. It’s simply of no relevance to them whatsoever. It’s the essence of the philosophy of “live and let live”. That doesn’t appear to be the case by anything you’ve written thus far.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121949903#Comment_121949903

When I’m addressing your points specifically, certainly I’ll quote the post which contains the point I’m addressing. Otherwise, I’m not in the habit of painting a target on anyone’s back or singling them out for unfair criticism.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121949974#Comment_121949974

Ah come on - having an opinion on someone or something is NOT "conerning myself with" said person or thing, thats vague at best clutching at straws at worse and you know it, which means you have nothing but you two too proud to back down, and you knew this when I said I don't force anything on the chuch but continued to draw it out

And this is the problem with you using three or four paragraphs and a stupid Spiderman meme to explain what one sentence would have done and saved everyone's time. Next time, be more direct. And I'm out at this point.

Last paragraph as Hawkeye, not me.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121949986#Comment_121949986

Are you certain that’s the line of argument you wish to maintain, given your earlier assertions about Church interference in the lives of non-subscribers to their ideology? Because by that logic, their interference is entirely justified.

No clutching at straws there, in fact I’d suggest I had a fairly firm grasp on your position, and it would be unfair of me to squeeze as I have no wish to humiliate anyone into submission. It’s just not a very productive strategy - as evidenced by the methods the Church has employed in the last century which has turned out far more anti-theists, than subscribers! 🤔

nozzferrahhtoo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121912285#Comment_121912285

I would enjoy some example of things that have been called Theory under the modern scientific method specifically (as opposed to theory in the vernacular) which have later been observed to be wrong. I trust the list will be realtively extensive given you stated above that this is what "usually" happens. So it sounds like you have plenty to choose from.

But from my knowledge, under the modern scientific method when something is called "Theory" this is the highest accolade of near certainty we ascribe anything in science. Atomic Theory or Evolution Theory for example. The word "Theory" in science indicates our very low expectation that the claims within it are likely to be falsified. Interestingly one of the first scientists to teach me this fact was Catholic Biologist Kenneth Miller.

Now perhaps you do not understand the difference between Scientific Theory and theory/hypothesis, and what you actually mean is that there is a lot of flux in the state of scientific hypotheses, especially at the fringes of our current knowledge and understanding. There you will get little argument from me. We come up with some wacky notions at times. And it can be quite fun and maybe even rare when those wacky notions turn out to be likely true. But most of them are indeed dismissed and rubbished by observation and falsification. That is how science works!

nozzferrahhtoo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121912285#Comment_121912285

I would enjoy some example of things that have been called Theory under the modern scientific method specifically (as opposed to theory in the vernacular) which have later been observed to be wrong. I trust the list will be realtively extensive given you stated above that this is what "usually" happens. So it sounds like you have plenty to choose from.

But from my knowledge, under the modern scientific method when something is called "Theory" this is the highest accolade of near certainty we ascribe anything in science. Atomic Theory or Evolution Theory for example. The word "Theory" in science indicates our very low expectation that the claims within it are likely to be falsified. Interestingly one of the first scientists to teach me this fact was Catholic Biologist Kenneth Miller.

Now perhaps you do not understand the difference between Scientific Theory and theory/hypothesis, and what you actually mean is that there is a lot of flux in the state of scientific hypotheses, especially at the fringes of our current knowledge and understanding. There you will get little argument from me. We come up with some wacky notions at times. And it can be quite fun and maybe even rare when those wacky notions turn out to be likely true. But most of them are indeed dismissed and rubbished by observation and falsification. That is how science works!

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121912337#Comment_121912337

I have always understood the phrases "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" to be placeholder terms for things we do not understand yet. There have been calculation results and observations that we do not understand and we gave those areas of ignorance names.

As such it falls on my ears strangely to read the statement "Dark matter does not exist after all". What does that even mean given the nature of what the phrase "dark matter" even means? Who is saying it does not exist? And what does the speaker say they actually mean by that statement?

The rest of your post however is making the fallacy of equivocating between two hypotheses. An error Sherlock Holmes, myself, and most scientists would never make. If you have two hypotheses X and Y, Y does not become more credible or more substantiated if you prove X is wrong. Why? Because BOTH can be wrong and the actual answer could be some other Z.

In other words even if you prove one idea wrong, the work to substantiate the second idea is STILL entirely ahead of you. A nonsense idea remains a nonsense idea, even if another idea turns out to be wrong.

Boy1: Where do babies come from?

Boy2: The stork brings them.

Boy1: I do not think that can be right.

Boy2: Well where do you think they come from?

Boy1: I have no idea.

Boy2: AHA! See??? The stork must bring them!!!

In the above conversation Boy2 falsely believes his idea becomes more credible, because Boy1 has no idea of his own. You and I can both see how and why Boy2 is engaged in a fallacy however I am sure. His idea was unsubstantated fantasy before Boy1 admitted to having no idea of his own. And it remains unsubstantiated fantasy after Boy1 admitted this.

Similarly your idea that some god created the universe remains unsubstantiated, regardless of whether Big Bang theory is accepted or falsified by science. Your pretence that there is only two ideas, and proving one wrong proves the other right, is just that. Pretense. And as I said I imagine Sherlock Holmes, were he real, would be embarrased to be associated with such fallacious reasoning.