Atheists - why do you care?

Obliq · 07-01-2013 1:47pm

pauldla wrote: »

Is that what that photo was, over on the other thread? A picture of John Waters in the nip? I couldn't see it here.

Wow, for once I'm grateful for the Great Firewall of China.

Yes, you can be thankful for small mercies. Although I didn't HAVE to look. :eek:

kylith · 07-01-2013 2:27pm

I have been preached at by Catholics, Protestants and Mormons. I've been told that I'm a sinner and I'm going to hell, and I've been told all that from the day I was born. No atheist has ever said anything to me other than 'I don't belive in gods, and it's ok if you don't either'.

As others have said, the reason why atheists are having to get more vocal is to get some basic rights to education which religious people would like to deny us unless we sign up with them.

pH · 07-01-2013 2:41pm

The Mustard wrote: »

What I do not understand is why atheists feel the need to preach what they believe. I just think that there's no point. In my opinion, there is nothing to be gained from engaging theists in conversation on the subject. In my opinion, there is nothing to be gained in convincing someone of the non-existence of God.

I've no idea why you think this is true? Where are you encountering this "preaching"? In public spaces? In schools? Is there an organisation out there trying to convert people away from their religious beliefs?

Take an organisation like Atheist Ireland - nearly everything they do is looking for fairness and equality for those in Ireland who don't believe - trying to loosen the church's grip on our society - hardly anything is "preaching" or aimed at telling believers there's no god, or has a goal of deconverting them.

At the risk of using a possibly condescending yet hopefully apt cliché, I think it's like telling a child that there's no Santa Claus. I still remember that sad school day, long ago, when another seven year old classmate told me that. I was simply unable to convince myself that what I had heard was not true, but there's no going back once you're through the looking glass.

I have no idea what type of speech/books/TV you think is being made that shouldn't be. I know no one who thinks that there should be an atheism program inflicted on primary school children where they're daily bombarded with stories about there being no God.

My question boils down to this: If people can't see it for themselves, why bother telling them, when they clearly do not want to know?

I'm sorry who is telling them?

oldrnwisr · 07-01-2013 2:42pm

The Mustard wrote: »

I think of theism as a harmless and/or beneficial belief. I understand about the wars in the name of Allah, God, etc. None of that affects me here in Ireland. I understand about oppression by the Catholic Church in Ireland. I'm inclined to think that the separation of Church and State is a work in progress, and that we have moved on rather a lot over the previous 60 years.

If we're talking about theism and theism alone then I'll grant you harmless, beneficial, not a chance. However, there aren't that many people out there who are vanilla theists, usually it's some flavour of theism like Christianity or Islam. Once that happens harmlessness evaporates. It's not just holy wars, the real and detrimental effects of belief can be felt in this country too, it just depends on who you are. We have vocal opposition from the Church and religious organisations regarding same-sex marriage and abortion, discrimination against non-religious people in education and many other facets of life where the Church has needlessly interfered. The only reason we have seen progress in the last 60 years is that the influence of the Church has been steadily eroded and opposed.

The Mustard wrote: »

From what I've read, people who believe in a God are generally happier and live longer. It must be a pretty comforting to believe in a benevolent higher power; a being who has made a plan for you, even if you haven't bothered to make one of your own. I don't see the reasoning, but I understand the comfort.

Even if the section in bold were true, so what? What's important is whether or not these beliefs are true, not whether or not they offer comfort.

The Mustard wrote: »

What I do not understand is why atheists feel the need to preach what they believe. I just think that there's no point. In my opinion, there is nothing to be gained from engaging theists in conversation on the subject. In my opinion, there is nothing to be gained in convincing someone of the non-existence of God.

For the most part we don't. Other than outlets like Boards, I only respond to challenges from theists rather than proactively talking about my atheism. However, even in the case of people like Richard Dawkins, it's not really fair to call what he does proselytism or evangelism. There is no positive claim to be made regarding atheism. We are not proposing some alternate set of beliefs to rival those of established religions. Rather people like Dawkins are challenging what they see as the falsehoods being promulgated by religious groups with the intention of converting non-believers. Those of us who engage in this behaviour either here on Boards or in public are simply attempting to refute the baseless claims of theists lest some innocent soul be taken in by their bullcrap, personally speaking.

The Mustard wrote: »

My question boils down to this: If people can't see it for themselves, why bother telling them, when they clearly do not want to know?

Because it's not a matter of intelligence or comprehension, rather one of knowledge. Like it or not, there are a great many people out there who follow the religion that they do simply because their parents did. They have put no thought or effort into questioning or even understanding the beliefs that they purport to hold. As other posters have said, losing your faith can be a liberating experience, why would you not want to share that?

Pat Mustard · 07-01-2013 5:20pm

Thanks for all replies in a topic which has clearly been analysed in detail several times previously. Due to the number of replies, I am going to simply respond to one post, but hopefully my response will be adequate.

A number of posters have asked me whether I have come across many atheists preaching. No, I have not. In fact, apart from Mormons and maybe Jehova's Witnesses, I have rarely come across anybody trying to preach to me at all. On the few occasions that it has happened, it has been after a quantity of alcohol with friends or family members, who were a little preachy at the time. Although I have rarely witnessed conversations where there was a preachy atheist stranger, I have seen it and I could not understand the object of it.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

If we're talking about theism and theism alone then I'll grant you harmless, beneficial, not a chance. However, there aren't that many people out there who are vanilla theists, usually it's some flavour of theism like Christianity or Islam. Once that happens harmlessness evaporates. It's not just holy wars, the real and detrimental effects of belief can be felt in this country too, it just depends on who you are. We have vocal opposition from the Church and religious organisations regarding same-sex marriage and abortion, discrimination against non-religious people in education and many other facets of life where the Church has needlessly interfered. The only reason we have seen progress in the last 60 years is that the influence of the Church has been steadily eroded and opposed.

I agree with much of what you write.

However, I believe that there are many of those who practise as (a la carte, perhaps) Catholics, who support many of the beliefs and rights of those who the Catholic Church would seek to oppress.

I think that most Catholics accept that their own church has committed grave wrongs. I know Catholics that have protested within their own church, calling for change, calling for public disclosures of wrongs. And I know that they retaliated when they were ignored. I wouldn't like to go into further detail on that, at the slim risk of identifying anyone.

I would accept that Catholic dogma has had a profound impact upon our society, much of it wantonly ultra-conservative and negative.

I would also accept that most of the improvements in the position over the past 60 years have come about due to opposition to the position of the Church.

I would draw a distinction between the belief in God held by a measured, reasonable, just Catholic who aspires to a fair society for all, and the hellfire, brimstone and abuse brought about by the domination of the Catholic Church for more than two millenia.

I know quite a few Catholics who I would regard as being measured, reasonable, just and fair, especially when it comes to people's rights and what those rights should be.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Even if the section in bold were true, so what? What's important is whether or not these beliefs are true, not whether or not they offer comfort.

It was the crux of my initial post. I think that the comfort of the belief is what makes those people cling to it. Although I agree that organised religion is generally bad, I have no difficulty with an individual holding a belief in a God. Again, I can see how Catholic dogma is objectionable in many areas.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

For the most part we don't. Other than outlets like Boards, I only respond to challenges from theists rather than proactively talking about my atheism. However, even in the case of people like Richard Dawkins, it's not really fair to call what he does proselytism or evangelism. There is no positive claim to be made regarding atheism. We are not proposing some alternate set of beliefs to rival those of established religions. Rather people like Dawkins are challenging what they see as the falsehoods being promulgated by religious groups with the intention of converting non-believers. Those of us who engage in this behaviour either here on Boards or in public are simply attempting to refute the baseless claims of theists lest some innocent soul be taken in by their bullcrap, personally speaking.

Again, I agree with most of what you write, except with regard to Dawkins. I find him to be about as preachy as possible.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Because it's not a matter of intelligence or comprehension, rather one of knowledge. Like it or not, there are a great many people out there who follow the religion that they do simply because their parents did. They have put no thought or effort into questioning or even understanding the beliefs that they purport to hold.

I can understand this. Thank you.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

As other posters have said, losing your faith can be a liberating experience, why would you not want to share that?

Personally, I found it about as liberating as losing my car keys. Not trying to be smart, but I found it an unpleasant experience. None of my other core beliefs changed in any way. I gained nothing.

ShooterSF · 07-01-2013 5:30pm

The Mustard wrote: »

Personally, I found it about as liberating as losing my car keys. Not trying to be smart, but I found it an unpleasant experience. None of my other core beliefs changed in any way. I gained nothing.

Just on this, you must have had very little belief in the teachings of any religion before hand if that is true. It would help you understand oldrnwsr's point if you are aware that not everyone has or had a similar experience. It's very easy to see why going from believing what the catholic church teaches about sin and punishment to not is a liberating experience. I'd never want to be a believer again and one of my biggest fears is my brain malfunctioning and drawing me back in at some point.

Pat Mustard · 07-01-2013 5:51pm

ShooterSF wrote: »

Just on this, you must have had very little belief in the teachings of any religion before hand if that is true.

That's not so. I once believed in a benevolent, non-interventionist God; the kind of guy who helps those who help themselves. I now believe that prayer is like self-hypnosis, galvanising people to pursue their true goals and ambitions.

ShooterSF wrote: »

It would help you understand oldrnwsr's point if you are aware that not everyone has or had a similar experience.

Yes, you are right. I have never had any interest in anyone else's theist/atheist beliefs, until recently. There has been an element of self-blinkering.

ShooterSF wrote: »

It's very easy to see why going from believing what the catholic church teaches about sin and punishment to not is a liberating experience.

Maybe. I can't see it. I guess I chose to believe certain things and those which I didn't like to believe, I simply didn't. It was more of an inevitable conclusion than any sort of leap in understanding.

ShooterSF wrote: »

I'd never want to be a believer again and one of my biggest fears is my brain malfunctioning and drawing me back in at some point.

condra · 07-01-2013 6:17pm

The Mustard, I'm not so sure that so many atheists actually "care" so much anyway. Certainly in this bloody awesome corner of the internet, (A&A) we identify as atheists but apparently spend more time talking about science, religion and ethics, than we do actually being evangelical.

If you're looking for some truly dogmatic, evangelical atheism, "Atheism+" might be more up your street, or its nearest Irish equivalent, "Atheist Ireland".
http://www.facebook.com/groups/atheistireland/

I guarentee the responses to your "why do you care" question would be more than a little frosty in those circles compared to this forum.

Pat Mustard · 07-01-2013 6:30pm

condra wrote: »

The Mustard, I'm not so sure that so many atheists actually "care" so much anyway. Certainly in this bloody awesome corner of the internet, (A&A) we identify as atheists but apparently spend more time talking about science, religion and ethics, than we do actually being evangelical.

If you're looking for some truly dogmatic, evangelical atheism, "Atheism+" might be more up your street, or its nearest Irish equivalent, "Atheist Ireland".
http://www.facebook.com/groups/atheistireland/

I guarentee the responses to your "why do you care" question would be more than a little frosty in those circles compared to this forum.

Very good! In fact, I was pleasantly surprised with the reasonable, patient, and engaging replies that I received in this forum.

I had thought that it might be an emotive topic for some.

Obliq · 07-01-2013 6:38pm

condra wrote: »

I guarentee the responses to your "why do you care" question would be more than a little frosty in those circles compared to this forum.

Don't you mean less moderate?

Naz_st · 07-01-2013 6:40pm

Christopher Hitchens put it well when asked "Why don't you keep your atheism to yourself?": "Because the religious won't allow me to; because every time I open the paper there's another instance of theocratic encroachment on free society"

Bannasidhe · 07-01-2013 6:41pm

The Mustard wrote: »

Very good! In fact, I was pleasantly surprised with the reasonable, patient, and engaging replies that I received in this forum.

I had thought that it might be an emotive topic for some.

I only get emotive when someone tried to push their religious beliefs on me or mine - then I push back.

Sadly, in Ireland that requires a lot of pushing - but I used to be a prop forward so I'm well used to shoving back when the pressure builds.

ShooterSF · 07-01-2013 7:08pm

The Mustard wrote: »

That's not so. I once believed in a benevolent, non-interventionist God; the kind of guy who helps those who help themselves. I now believe that prayer is like self-hypnosis, galvanising people to pursue their true goals and ambitions.

To be fair I did mean religions like christianity, islam etc. when I said "you must have had very little belief in the teachings of any religion" but I do find it funny, if you dont mind me saying, that your own private religion had both a non-interventionist god and one that helps people thereby continuing religions contradictory nature

Maybe. I can't see it. I guess I chose to believe certain things and those which I didn't like to believe, I simply didn't. It was more of an inevitable conclusion than any sort of leap in understanding.

Lucky you! I believed stuff, horrible stuff about "impure" thoughts and desires and was often miserable and frightened because of it.

I smile too but our personality is part of our brains and if I had an accident that damaged or affected it I could start believing it again and that really is scary

Pat Mustard · 07-01-2013 7:29pm

ShooterSF wrote: »

To be fair I did mean religions like christianity, islam etc. when I said "you must have had very little belief in the teachings of any religion" but I do find it funny, if you dont mind me saying, that your own private religion had both a non-interventionist god and one that helps people thereby continuing religions contradictory nature

I was raised a Catholic, but I was also raised to think for myself. When devout Catholic parents tell their 5 year old that Adam and Eve and the garden of Eden was just a parable, then that five year old is going to wonder what else is parable and to be taken with a pinch of salt. Plus, even schoolchildren raise questions when they are told about a loving post-VaticanII god in school, when those same children quote the old testament god that gave plagues of locusts and rivers of blood. It sure made sense to me when I heard that kid say it, all those years ago.

Just because someone is raised to be a Catholic does not mean that they believe all of Church dogma.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Lucky you! I believed stuff, horrible stuff about "impure" thoughts and desires and was often miserable and frightened because of it.

Yeah, I was more into the 'repent and all shall be forgiven' carry on. Never heard about impure thoughts or any of that, either in mass or school.

ShooterSF wrote: »

I smile too but our personality is part of our brains and if I had an accident that damaged or affected it I could start believing it again and that really is scary

Ah, when I go senile, I plan on being like one of those old blonde labradors who stiffly wander around, wagging their tails and smiling at nothing.

Obliq · 07-01-2013 7:32pm

ShooterSF wrote: »

I smile too but our personality is part of our brains and if I had an accident that damaged or affected it I could start believing it again and that really is scary

Y'know, it IS the scariest thing - to think that if there was a horrible accident (or in the event of me having Alzheimer's or something), that I would start believing loved ones were against me, or there was a big scary devil, or that my sons were actually other people....all sorts of imaginings. I'm sure it's a thought that must be scarier for some than others, like when someone has thrown off certain misconceptions/beliefs.

I personally would be terrified to think that one day I might revert to the horribly shy, under-confident person I used to be, with all the hang ups that went with that. I don't know exactly how different the fear of that is, to the fear of reverting to a drummed-in belief like religion. Any different?

ShooterSF · 07-01-2013 8:08pm

The Mustard wrote: »

I was raised a Catholic, but I was also raised to think for myself. When devout Catholic parents tell their 5 year old that Adam and Eve and the garden of Eden was just a parable, then that five year old is going to wonder what else is parable and to be taken with a pinch of salt. Plus, even schoolchildren raise questions when they are told about a loving post-VaticanII god in school, when those same children quote the old testament god that gave plagues of locusts and rivers of blood. It sure made sense to me when I heard that kid say it, all those years ago.

Just because someone is raised to be a Catholic does not mean that they believe all of Church dogma.

Yeah, I was more into the 'repent and all shall be forgiven' carry on. Never heard about impure thoughts or any of that, either in mass or school.

Ah, when I go senile, I plan on being like one of those old blonde labradors who stiffly wander around, wagging their tails and smiling at nothing.

Oh I was very questioning but also until 15ish someone who had the utmost trust in authority figures; And my school, I wasn't made go to mass and later found out my parents don't really believe in what I was being taught, was very vocal about the whole catholic views on sex, masturbation etc.

I agree that some people that describe themselves as catholic don't actually believe in most of it but it's their fault if they continue to misuse the term "catholic" imo. Theist or even christian might be a truer label.

Obliq wrote: »

Y'know, it IS the scariest thing - to think that if there was a horrible accident (or in the event of me having Alzheimer's or something), that I would start believing loved ones were against me, or there was a big scary devil, or that my sons were actually other people....all sorts of imaginings. I'm sure it's a thought that must be scarier for some than others, like when someone has thrown off certain misconceptions/beliefs.

I personally would be terrified to think that one day I might revert to the horribly shy, under-confident person I used to be, with all the hang ups that went with that. I don't know exactly how different the fear of that is, to the fear of reverting to a drummed-in belief like religion. Any different?

No different. I'm scarily aware that losing a physical attribute is not the only danger that can hit at any time and tbh I think I'd fear the idea of losing part of my personality more so than a limb. Though I admit I get to weigh up that decision from a rather lofty position of possibly never being at risk of either.

Obliq · 07-01-2013 8:48pm

ShooterSF wrote: »

Though I admit I get to weigh up that decision from a rather lofty position of possibly never being at risk of either.

What's the secret then?!

Zombrex · 07-01-2013 10:01pm

The Mustard wrote: »

I was raised a Catholic, but I was also raised to think for myself.

Then you weren't raised a Catholic. :P

The issue here seems to be more that you have a rather rose tinted view of religion. Its easy to say what's the big deal when all your experiences of religion are the odd trip to mass where you don't listen to what the priest says and then down to the pub.

The reality though is that this comfortable religion free life was won for you by secularists who have fought long and hard to push back the encroachment of religion on society.

Asking what is the big deal with atheism or secularism is like asking what's the big deal with freedom of speech or right to a fair trial. All these things we take for granted don't necessarily seem all that important as principles, particularly when we find distasteful aspects of it (ie when we want to shut up someone like Fred Phelps or we want to rail road someone like Fred West).

A good example is atheists protesting religious symbols being displayed on government property in the US. People, mostly Christians, think it is about ruining their good time. In reality it isn't about the actual acts at all, few atheists care all that much if a cross is hanging from a court house. They care about the principle, and what the gradual erosion of the principle means in terms of precedence.

You have the luxury of living in a society where secularists have already won you the right to not care about religion. But it would be foolish to think that we can never go back to the old ways. These rights are not won and then forgotten about, it is a process of maintaining such rights.

Pat Mustard · 07-01-2013 10:34pm

Good post. I'm going to question you on it, but rest assured, I was not offended, nor am I upset in any way. I don't mean to offend either.

Zombrex wrote: »

Then you weren't raised a Catholic. :P

I'm not sure whether you are taking the mick here or not. However, I think I had the same Catholic upbringing as my friends, most of whom are now atheists. However, I think that this has more to do with type of mindset that comes with working in certain occupations.

Zombrex wrote: »

The issue here seems to be more that you have a rather rose tinted view of religion. Its easy to say what's the big deal when all your experiences of religion are the odd trip to mass where you don't listen to what the priest says and then down to the pub.

Maybe I had an a-la-carte Catholic-lite upbringing then, with Buddy Jesus, I don't know

. I grew up in the 1980s. Although I'm well aware of Catholic Church ultra-conservatism and abuse, and even Magdelene laundries, I wonder if the view of the Catholic Church as a viable threat harks back to the power that they held in the 1960s rather than the present day situation.

Zombrex wrote: »

The reality though is that this comfortable religion free life was won for you by secularists who have fought long and hard to push back the encroachment of religion on society.

I don't know enough to argue with you on that one.

Zombrex wrote: »

Asking what is the big deal with atheism or secularism is like asking what's the big deal with freedom of speech or right to a fair trial. All these things we take for granted don't necessarily seem all that important as principles, particularly when we find distasteful aspects of it (ie when we want to shut up someone like Fred Phelps or we want to rail road someone like Fred West).

Basically, I can see your point. I've always taken these freedoms for granted. I've grown up with them. But I've grown up with freedom from the British too, and I don't hold a major grudge against them. I'm looking at things the way that they are today. I don't see the struggle that others are talking about in this day and age. Perhaps I'm insulated from it to a greater or lesser extent.

I don't understand why you have referred to Fred West.

Zombrex wrote: »

A good example is atheists protesting religious symbols being displayed on government property in the US. People, mostly Christians, think it is about ruining their good time. In reality it isn't about the actual acts at all, few atheists care all that much if a cross is hanging from a court house. They care about the principle, and what the gradual erosion of the principle means in terms of precedence.

I see the principle, but it's not something with which I agree. I think it goes too far.

Zombrex wrote: »

You have the luxury of living in a society where secularists have already won you the right to not care about religion. But it would be foolish to think that we can never go back to the old ways. These rights are not won and then forgotten about, it is a process of maintaining such rights.

I was about to disagree and say that it could never happen, when I remembered that several countries succumbed to fascism during the 1930s. I'll just say that I don't see it happening any time soon.

Readyhed · 07-01-2013 11:04pm

What's all this about "Impure Thoughts" ?

Yez mean **** don't yez?

It's alright - athiests are allowed to ****.

ShooterSF · 07-01-2013 11:43pm

Obliq wrote: »

What's the secret then?!

None really. Be born into a first world country seemingly without any major medical issues with relative first world safety and health care around you!

I'm not saying I'm invincible just less likely statistically.

Readyhed wrote: »

What's all this about "Impure Thoughts" ?

Yez mean **** don't yez?

It's alright - athiests are allowed to ****.

****, Shagging, even lust or sexual thoughts. I know they are natural thoughts now but I wish I could go back and tell indoctrinated 13 year old me that and that was the late 90s not the 60s btw.

swampgas · 08-01-2013 12:12am

ShooterSF wrote: »

****, Shagging, even lust or sexual thoughts. I know they are natural thoughts now but I wish I could go back and tell indoctrinated 13 year old me that and that was the late 90s not the 60s btw.

Ditto.

Reminds me of being told by my father that "impure thoughts" were not sinful as long as they were not "entertained". When I asked for an explanation of what "entertaining impure thoughts" meant all I got was a very long and embarrassed silence. That embarrassed silence only reinforced my own sense of guilt, more than words could in fact.

Catholicism seems obsessed with sex - thinking about sex (aka impure thoughts), contraception, homosexuality, masturbation (aka impure actions), casual sex, extra-marital sex - all are declared wrong and dirty. So much unnecessary guilt and self-loathing dumped onto naive adolescents. Catholicism in this context is anything but harmless: its key message seems to be that you are a bad, dirty, and depraved human being - simply for thinking something, or doing something completely natural.

And yet people persist in thinking that Catholicism and indoctrinating young minds is harmless, even beneficial. People are strange.

oldrnwisr · 08-01-2013 2:48am

The Mustard wrote: »

I agree with much of what you write.

However, I believe that there are many of those who practise as (a la carte, perhaps) Catholics, who support many of the beliefs and rights of those who the Catholic Church would seek to oppress.

I think that most Catholics accept that their own church has committed grave wrongs. I know Catholics that have protested within their own church, calling for change, calling for public disclosures of wrongs. And I know that they retaliated when they were ignored. I wouldn't like to go into further detail on that, at the slim risk of identifying anyone.

I would accept that Catholic dogma has had a profound impact upon our society, much of it wantonly ultra-conservative and negative.

I would also accept that most of the improvements in the position over the past 60 years have come about due to opposition to the position of the Church.

I would draw a distinction between the belief in God held by a measured, reasonable, just Catholic who aspires to a fair society for all, and the hellfire, brimstone and abuse brought about by the domination of the Catholic Church for more than two millenia.

I know quite a few Catholics who I would regard as being measured, reasonable, just and fair, especially when it comes to people's rights and what those rights should be.

Agreed. Given that ostensibly 84% of the country is catholic while 70-75% of the country supports gay marriage, there does seem to be an overwhelming number of "catholics" who pay no attention whatsoever to the actual teachings of their religion. In fact recently, the Iona Institute have been harping on about a survey of catholic beliefs in Ireland which found that 92% of catholics believed in god, which means that 8% of catholics disagree with the most basic requirement for being catholic.
It's hardly surprising though given how far removed catholic teaching is from the source material.

As far as being a measured and reasonable catholic goes, I'm not sure that those characteristics can logically occupy the same space. In order to take a reasonable position on social issues it is necessary to give up what it means to be catholic.
First of all, with regard to the abuses committed by the church, in the long run this shouldn't matter to a true catholic. By that, I mean that someone who is a believing catholic and accepts the soteriological claims of the catholic church has to accept that salvation lies in their faith in and adherence to the magesterium of the church.
Secondly, the social positions of the catholic church with regard to contraception, abortion, same-sex marriage etc. are such that it's either a reasonable position or the catholic position. You can't have a reasonable catholic position. No sane person could watch the ongoing AIDS crisis in Africa and still agree with the catholic position on contraception. No sane person could watch the pope blessing people hoping to bring in a bill legalising the murder of gay people and say gee there's an organisation I want to be part of.

The Mustard wrote: »

Personally, I found it about as liberating as losing my car keys. Not trying to be smart, but I found it an unpleasant experience. None of my other core beliefs changed in any way. I gained nothing.

Well I suppose everyone is different. For me, losing my faith was part of a larger experience of coming to know more about the universe and our place in it. Having realised that neither catholicism nor christianity have any merit, I began to learn about evolution and cosmology and all the real and demonstrable evidence we have where previously there had only been 2000 year old fairytales. It was like finding out how a magic trick is done. You kind of revel in the newfound knowledge while wondering at how you got sucked in by the trick in the first place.

Pat Mustard · 08-01-2013 3:36am

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Agreed. Given that ostensibly 84% of the country is catholic while 70-75% of the country supports gay marriage, there does seem to be an overwhelming number of "catholics" who pay no attention whatsoever to the actual teachings of their religion. In fact recently, the Iona Institute have been harping on about a survey of catholic beliefs in Ireland which found that 92% of catholics believed in god, which means that 8% of catholics disagree with the most basic requirement for being catholic.
It's hardly surprising though given how far removed catholic teaching is from the source material.

As far as being a measured and reasonable catholic goes, I'm not sure that those characteristics can logically occupy the same space. In order to take a reasonable position on social issues it is necessary to give up what it means to be catholic.
First of all, with regard to the abuses committed by the church, in the long run this shouldn't matter to a true catholic. By that, I mean that someone who is a believing catholic and accepts the soteriological claims of the catholic church has to accept that salvation lies in their faith in and adherence to the magesterium of the church.
Secondly, the social positions of the catholic church with regard to contraception, abortion, same-sex marriage etc. are such that it's either a reasonable position or the catholic position. You can't have a reasonable catholic position. No sane person could watch the ongoing AIDS crisis in Africa and still agree with the catholic position on contraception. No sane person could watch the pope blessing people hoping to bring in a bill legalising the murder of gay people and say gee there's an organisation I want to be part of.

I think that the logical conclusion of what you have written is that if one is a genuine Catholic, one must obey without thinking, without question. Although I know that this still happens to an extent, there are many Catholics who question a lot of what the Church says. There are many who will not accept certain aspects at all. I am not certain of your statistics, but they tend to support this position, as you pointed out. However, I think that there may be a tendency to incorrectly describe people as non-catholics because those people choose not to accept aspects of church dogma. I think that is simply not correct.

You wouldn't find people saying that someone wasn't a member of Fíne Gael simply because he didn't agree with all party policy.

I took a look on this forum and I saw another thread concerning a la carte Catholics or cultural Catholics. Personally, I believe that a large proportion of Catholics in this country could be described a la carte Catholics. They believe in God. However, they may not believe in Papal Infallibiity, for example. Does anyone really believe that the geriatric Pope is infallible? Maybe some do, but there are probably a great many Catholics in Ireland who don't.

In short, I believe that it is possible to be a Catholic and to have a fair and reasonable overall worldview. In saying this, I draw a distinction between Irish people, the great majority of whom are Catholic, and the Catholic Church as a religious institution. I do not defend the position of the Church in any way.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Well I suppose everyone is different. For me, losing my faith was part of a larger experience of coming to know more about the universe and our place in it. Having realised that neither catholicism nor christianity have any merit, I began to learn about evolution and cosmology and all the real and demonstrable evidence we have where previously there had only been 2000 year old fairytales. It was like finding out how a magic trick is done. You kind of revel in the newfound knowledge while wondering at how you got sucked in by the trick in the first place.

It's interesting how people came to this, how it has affected them, and the direction they have gone from there. Thank you.

pauldla · 08-01-2013 3:46am

swampgas wrote: »

Reminds me of being told by my father that "impure thoughts" were not sinful as long as they were not "entertained". When I asked for an explanation of what "entertaining impure thoughts" meant all I got was a very long and embarrassed silence. That embarrassed silence only reinforced my own sense of guilt, more than words could in fact.

Though I was quite the Holy Joe in my formative years, I was always amused by the thought of 'entertaining impure thoughts'. If the priest asked us if we had 'entertained impure thoughts', I wanted to answer 'no, they entertained me'.

Shenshen · 08-01-2013 10:28am

The Mustard wrote: »

I think that the logical conclusion of what you have written is that if one is a genuine Catholic, one must obey without thinking, without question. Although I know that this still happens to an extent, there are many Catholics who question a lot of what the Church says. There are many who will not accept certain aspects at all. I am not certain of your statistics, but they tend to support this position, as you pointed out. However, I think that there may be a tendency to incorrectly describe people as non-catholics because those people choose not to accept aspects of church dogma. I think that is simply not correct.

You wouldn't find people saying that someone wasn't a member of Fíne Gael simply because he didn't agree with all party policy.

I took a look on this forum and I saw another thread concerning a la carte Catholics or cultural Catholics. Personally, I believe that a large proportion of Catholics in this country could be described a la carte Catholics. They believe in God. However, they may not believe in Papal Infallibiity, for example. Does anyone really believe that the geriatric Pope is infallible? Maybe some do, but there are probably a great many Catholics in Ireland who don't.

In short, I believe that it is possible to be a Catholic and to have a fair and reasonable overall worldview. In saying this, I draw a distinction between Irish people, the great majority of whom are Catholic, and the Catholic Church as a religious institution. I do not defend the position of the Church in any way.

It's interesting how people came to this, how it has affected them, and the direction they have gone from there. Thank you.

It is indeed an interesting question - how much of what the church says would you have to actually believe in to be considered Catholic?
And how much disagreement would the church allow? And who gets to say who is and who isn't Catholic?

There's an awful lot of grey area there, that much is certain.
To take up your example of the Fine Gael member - say that person was a member of the party, had at one point in the past signed up for membership and keeps paying the fee. But at the same time, this person has for the past 20 years never once voted for Fine Gael, has protested their party program, and is convinced that Labour's program is actually the way forward.
Yet he remains a Fine Gael member as some important business associates of his are members as well, and because he enjoys going to the party meetings for the free food and drink and the company?

From what I have seen, this is your essential a-la-carte Irish Catholic. Was baptised as an infant, went to communion and confirmation for the dress-up, the presents and the party, and will now attend church for funerals, weddings and baptisms, as well as christmases, because everybody else does and they wouldn't want to be the odd one out.
There's a vague belief in a sort of god, but if asked if they belief in any of the essential, basic statements of Catholic belief - transsubstantiation, the virgin birth, confessions, etc. - they'd be likely to laugh in your face.

And while it may be annoying to most of the atheists here, who feel that these people should be more honest to themselves and stop calling themselves Catholic, their very freedom to not be bothered is in fact something that they have to thank secularists for.
Go back some 20 or 30 years, and the pressure excerted by the church would have been such to essentially force people to attend church each Sunday, to publicly at least proclaim their belief in any and all church doctrines, and to not voice any doubts other than in a secretive whisper.

And while the country is no longer occupied by the British, the British now have very little interest to re-occupy it, while the church is still actively working to regain its influence.

The fact that as part of the legislation process for the X-case, the committee will this week be spending a morning session listening to Catholic bishops is a disturbing reminder of this.

oldrnwisr · 08-01-2013 10:48am

The Mustard wrote: »

I think that the logical conclusion of what you have written is that if one is a genuine Catholic, one must obey without thinking, without question. Although I know that this still happens to an extent, there are many Catholics who question a lot of what the Church says. There are many who will not accept certain aspects at all. I am not certain of your statistics, but they tend to support this position, as you pointed out. However, I think that there may be a tendency to incorrectly describe people as non-catholics because those people choose not to accept aspects of church dogma. I think that is simply not correct.

You wouldn't find people saying that someone wasn't a member of Fíne Gael simply because he didn't agree with all party policy.

I took a look on this forum and I saw another thread concerning a la carte Catholics or cultural Catholics. Personally, I believe that a large proportion of Catholics in this country could be described a la carte Catholics. They believe in God. However, they may not believe in Papal Infallibiity, for example. Does anyone really believe that the geriatric Pope is infallible? Maybe some do, but there are probably a great many Catholics in Ireland who don't.

In short, I believe that it is possible to be a Catholic and to have a fair and reasonable overall worldview. In saying this, I draw a distinction between Irish people, the great majority of whom are Catholic, and the Catholic Church as a religious institution. I do not defend the position of the Church in any way.

OK, so here's the thing about Church teachings and ordinary catholics.

In Catholicism there is a specific theological concept known as the magisterium which encompasses the teaching authority of the church. This covers things like papal infallibility which you touch on in your post. The magisterium covers a range of teachings each with its own grade of authority. So when the pope speaks "ex cathedra" and makes a claim about some scriptural or doctrinal teaching, such a teaching becomes part of the sacred magisterium and all catholics are expected to adhere to that teaching unquestioningly. Other teachings of the pope become part of the ordinary magisterium, indicating that they are of a fallible nature. However, faithful catholics are still required to make a "submission of intellect and will" referred to in catholicism as "obsequium religiosum" which is described as:

"Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking."

In Donum Veritas, this idea of religious submission was further expanded by establishing the adherence required for the different degrees of teaching:

"When the Magisterium of the Church makes an infallible pronouncement and solemnly declares that a teaching is found in Revelation, the assent called for is that of theological faith. This kind of adherence is to be given even to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium when it proposes for belief a teaching of faith as divinely revealed. When the Magisterium proposes "in a definitive way" truths concerning faith and morals, which, even if not divinely revealed, are nevertheless strictly and intimately connected with Revelation, these must be firmly accepted and held. When the Magisterium, not intending to act "definitively", teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect. This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith."

Long story short, faithful catholics are expected to adhere to all teachings of the church. The only distinction lies in whether they're supposed to simply obey the teaching or actually believe that the teaching is correct.

As for your Fine Gael analogy, Fine Gael do not define membership eligibility on the basis of adherence to policy, the Catholic church do. This is not a No True Scotsman situation. Someone is not defined as a catholic merely by self-identification. There are a specific set of requirements to be fulfilled.

Oh, and finally regarding the stats from my last post, sources here:

Support for same-sex marriage

Census results by religion

Pat Mustard · 08-01-2013 12:17pm

Shenshen wrote: »

From what I have seen, this is your essential a-la-carte Irish Catholic. Was baptised as an infant, went to communion and confirmation for the dress-up, the presents and the party, and will now attend church for funerals, weddings and baptisms, as well as christmases, because everybody else does and they wouldn't want to be the odd one out.
There's a vague belief in a sort of god, but if asked if they belief in any of the essential, basic statements of Catholic belief - transsubstantiation, the virgin birth, confessions, etc. - they'd be likely to laugh in your face.

I don't know if they'd laugh in your face. I think most of them simply couldn't care less about that kind of thing. I certainly know that any of my Catholic friends couldn't give a fiddlers. It seems to me that atheists on this thread know much more about Catholicism than the majority of Catholics that I know. As far as I can see, the people who really examine their faith, the true believers, are the atheists.

Shenshen wrote: »

And while it may be annoying to most of the atheists here, who feel that these people should be more honest to themselves and stop calling themselves Catholic, their very freedom to not be bothered is in fact something that they have to thank secularists for.
Go back some 20 or 30 years, and the pressure excerted by the church would have been such to essentially force people to attend church each Sunday, to publicly at least proclaim their belief in any and all church doctrines, and to not voice any doubts other than in a secretive whisper.

The issue of secularists having fought for these rights is something which has been mentioned to me a number of times in this thread. Which examples would you use? Ruairi Quinn has been campaigning to remove the Church/priests from schools.

I wasn't aware that athesists would be angry at self-identifying a la carte catholics for their moral laziness, essentially.

Shenshen wrote: »

And while the country is no longer occupied by the British, the British now have very little interest to re-occupy it, while the church is still actively working to regain its influence.

I cannot see that the Church has achieved success over the last 15-20 years, and with the kind of arrogance shown by the Church, it really doesn't have much credibility. But I take your point.

Shenshen wrote: »

The fact that as part of the legislation process for the X-case, the committee will this week be spending a morning session listening to Catholic bishops is a disturbing reminder of this.

Well it's against the principle of separation of Church and State, so I agree that it is inappropriate.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

OK, so here's the thing about Church teachings and ordinary catholics.

In Catholicism there is a specific theological concept known as the magisterium which encompasses the teaching authority of the church. This covers things like papal infallibility which you touch on in your post. The magisterium covers a range of teachings each with its own grade of authority. So when the pope speaks "ex cathedra" and makes a claim about some scriptural or doctrinal teaching, such a teaching becomes part of the sacred magisterium and all catholics are expected to adhere to that teaching unquestioningly. Other teachings of the pope become part of the ordinary magisterium, indicating that they are of a fallible nature. However, faithful catholics are still required to make a "submission of intellect and will" referred to in catholicism as "obsequium religiosum" which is described as:

"Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking."

In Donum Veritas, this idea of religious submission was further expanded by establishing the adherence required for the different degrees of teaching:

"When the Magisterium of the Church makes an infallible pronouncement and solemnly declares that a teaching is found in Revelation, the assent called for is that of theological faith. This kind of adherence is to be given even to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium when it proposes for belief a teaching of faith as divinely revealed. When the Magisterium proposes "in a definitive way" truths concerning faith and morals, which, even if not divinely revealed, are nevertheless strictly and intimately connected with Revelation, these must be firmly accepted and held. When the Magisterium, not intending to act "definitively", teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect. This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith."

Long story short, faithful catholics are expected to adhere to all teachings of the church. The only distinction lies in whether they're supposed to simply obey the teaching or actually believe that the teaching is correct.

As for your Fine Gael analogy, Fine Gael do not define membership eligibility on the basis of adherence to policy, the Catholic church do. This is not a No True Scotsman situation. Someone is not defined as a catholic merely by self-identification. There are a specific set of requirements to be fulfilled.

Oh, and finally regarding the stats from my last post, sources here:

Support for same-sex marriage

Census results by religion

Thank you for those links. I will take a look at those later, as I don't have time now.

Your point is that by definition these 'a la carte Catholics' are not Catholics at all, except by self-identification.

Let us take this to be the case. We still have all of those people who identify themselves as Catholics in Ireland. They are the same people, with the same cherry-picked set of beliefs. They still believe in God. I think that I know, because I used to be one of those people.

I still believe that one can find many reasonable, just, fair-minded self identified Catholics among these people.

PopePalpatine · 08-01-2013 12:19pm

The thing is, it's in the best interests of the Church in Ireland not to remind nominal Catholics of the Church tenets which they don't follow, otherwise they can't use "84%" as a threat to the government.

Shenshen · 08-01-2013 12:30pm

The Mustard wrote: »

I don't know if they'd laugh in your face. I think most of them simply couldn't care less about that kind of thing. I certainly know that any of my Catholic friends couldn't give a fiddlers. It seems to me that atheists on this thread know much more about Catholicism than the majority of Catholics that I know. As far as I can see, the people who really examine their faith, the true believers, are the atheists.

There have been Catholics on this very forum in the past who, when asked if they believe in any of the great dogmas (or is it dogmata? Grammar-dilemma) or mysteries, told the person asking to stop being so silly.
Based on that I think yes, a lot of them would find the notion of believing in the bread and wine actually, really turning into flesh and blood ridiculous at best.

The issue of secularists having fought for these rights is something which has been mentioned to me a number of times in this thread. Which examples would you use? Ruairi Quinn has been campaigning to remove the Church/priests from schools.

One doesn't need to be an atheist to be a secularist.

It wasn't aware that athesists would be angry at self-identifying a la carte catholics for their moral laziness, essentially.

Many atheists do get frustrated with it, I think.
The reasons are not so much moral outrage at the laziness of others, they are more to do with the big numbers game : Every person who essentially doesn't care but counts themselves as a Catholic during the census, for example, is providing a basis and an arguement for the church to continue its influence on Irish society to the best of its ability.
As far as they are concerned, they're speaking for 84% of the population, after all.
And politicians will act in way they would assume will please those 84%.

I cannot see that the Church has achieved success over the last 15-20 years, and with the kind of arrogance shown by the Church, it really doesn't have much credibility. But I take your point.

Considering that the bishops get a separate, lengthy hearing on an issue that will never, ever effect any one of them personally, I feel it still has far too much credibility for peace of mind.
Secularism still has a long way to go.

Atheists - why do you care?

Comments