Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

1…1516182021…70

Comments

  • #512
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,858 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    alaimacerc wrote: »
    You're not "officially" a Catholic unless you're "in communion with the pope", which surely requires that you've been both confirmed and taken communion. So that is reversible by excommunication

    Actually, you are still considered a catholic, even if excommunicated:
    New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law wrote:
    Once a Catholic by baptism or reception, one always remains a Catholic (semel catholicus, semper catholicus). Even those who have joined another religion, have become atheists or agnostics, or have been excommunicated remain Catholics. Excommunicates lose rights, such as the right to the sacraments, but they are still bound to the obligations of the law; their rights are restored when they are reconciled through the remission of the penalty.


  • #513
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Piliger wrote: »
    With respect
    ... this is gonna be good... (Helps that the Daily Show is one right now, of course.)
    I think you spend way too much time obsessed with who is and who is not one flavour of religion, a catholic.

    About all you actually know about me is that I spend way too much time on this thread, so I don't think you have any basis for this conclusion.
    As an atheist I couldn't give a monkey's sh1t who is what flavour of theism.

    I do care about how many are Atheist and how many are theist. End of story.

    Well, "with respect", that's a) weird, and b) of no broader interest whatsoever. But by all means enjoy. What you're saying is a bit like me going to the doctor and being told "I don't care what's actually wrong with you. I don't care about 'sick' and 'not sick'." (Actually, most of my visits to the doctor have actually been rather too much like that...) Diagnosis is an essential prerequisite for effective treatment.

    Furthermore, as I've pointed out to you directly several times now, it's very clear that "Catholic" does not actually in practice always even imply "theist". So your exercise in "lumping" is invalid, as well as unhelpful. (And indeed, off-topic, since the subject's about Christianity, and whatever else you want to blame Islam for, "whining about the War on Christmas" isn't generally one of them.)


  • #514
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 40,107 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    alaimacerc wrote: »
    I think you're missing the point here.

    Um, I think you missed the point that my remark was clearly not directed at ETs etc, but at this thread's valiant defenders of the catholic hegemony.

    I'm partial to your abracadabra
    I'm raptured by the joy of it all



  • #515
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Actually, you are still considered a catholic, even if excommunicated:

    Bizarre. Is that authoritative, or is someone just busking for "Dummy's Guide to Catholicism" grade book sales? That baptism is common to all trinitarian denominations on the one hand, but on the other can be split into "Catholic baptism" and "will need a Catholic do-over" is in no way logically inconsistent. But if religion were logically consistent, it wouldn't be religion, would it?


  • #516
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    ninja900 wrote: »
    Um, I think you missed the point that my remark was clearly not directed at ETs etc, but at this thread's valiant defenders of the catholic hegemony.

    Not at all clear, as someone was earlier (mis)quoting the ICHR as claiming that there were "no secular schools in Ireland". In fact, most of the hegemonists seem fairly shameless in their "what we have, we hold!" mentality, and not giving a monkey's about other people's rights if it might in any way impact on their end of the status quo.


  • Advertisement
  • #517
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 40,107 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    It's true, unfortunately. It's difficult, if not impossible, to get definitively kicked out of the RCC :( at least, for a lay person.
    Excommunication is really just a temporary (from their POV) suspension from communion until you 'come to your senses'. It's not expulsion which seems to be the popularly held meaning.

    I'm partial to your abracadabra
    I'm raptured by the joy of it all



  • #518
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,858 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    alaimacerc wrote: »
    Bizarre. Is that authoritative, or is someone just busking for "Dummy's Guide to Catholicism" grade book sales?

    Apparently, its a commentary on canon law by American and European canon lawyers, so it seems quite well informed.
    I've tried searching the phrase "semel catholicus, semper catholicus" and while it seems to be reasonably well known and referenced in other discussions on the subject of leaving the catholic church, I can't find its origins.
    alaimacerc wrote: »
    That baptism is common to all trinitarian denominations on the one hand, but on the other can be split into "Catholic baptism" and "will need a Catholic do-over" is in no way logically inconsistent. But if religion were logically consistent, it wouldn't be religion, would it?

    True :)


  • #519
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 40,107 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    alaimacerc wrote: »
    Not at all clear, as someone was earlier (mis)quoting the ICHR as claiming that there were "no secular schools in Ireland". In fact, most of the hegemonists seem fairly shameless in their "what we have, we hold!" mentality, and not giving a monkey's about other people's rights if it might in any way impact on their end of the status quo.

    Someone else, in a post not quoted or referred to by me, yeah :rolleyes:

    Edit: to put this to bed - whatever about the argument about whether ETs are secular (they're multi-denominational, not non-denominational, but the former is a legal requirement for state funding) I'm prepared to accept that they are secular.

    They do not promote any belief or non-belief above others.

    Given that, there are still 98% of primary schools which are decidedly non-secular. To say, as the defenders of the faith have done here, that meaningful choice exists when only 2% of primary schools are secular is a nonsense.

    For the vast majority of parents there is no choice, or (as my children have) a choice between schools of one religion and a school of another. (And in our very large Dublin suburb, ALL secondary schools are RCC.)

    I'm partial to your abracadabra
    I'm raptured by the joy of it all



  • #520
    Piliger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    alaimacerc wrote: »
    About all you actually know about me is that I spend way too much time on this thread, so I don't think you have any basis for this conclusion.
    Well I know that you pay far too much attention to christians as opposed to the many other flavours of theism. They are all the same. All deluded. All fantasists.
    Well, "with respect", that's a) weird, and b) of no broader interest whatsoever.
    I think it is to many people. And why is it weird for an Atheist to only care about Atheists and theists ? I would have thought it is standard form.
    But by all means enjoy. What you're saying is a bit like me going to the doctor and being told "I don't care what's actually wrong with you. I don't care about 'sick' and 'not sick'." (Actually, most of my visits to the doctor have actually been rather too much like that...) Diagnosis is an essential prerequisite for effective treatment.
    A rather poor analogy ... but hey, enjoy.
    Furthermore, as I've pointed out to you directly several times now, it's very clear that "Catholic" does not actually in practice always even imply "theist".
    Oh yes you have pointed that out several times. And I have asked why you obsess with this question rather than why muslims or buddhists do the same.
    So your exercise in "lumping" is invalid, as well as unhelpful. (And indeed, off-topic, since the subject's about Christianity, and whatever else you want to blame Islam for, "whining about the War on Christmas" isn't generally one of them.)
    It is no more off topic that your continual thing about assigning labels to people who are well able to assign a label to themselves. Your belief that you have a right to tell people they are not a catholic or not a theist,in spite of them choosing that label, is rather odd imho. And it is evident that the original fractured post of this thread confused christian and theist.

    As an atheist I don't grasp why I could possibly care about whether a catholic may not be a pure-bred catholic, or a catholic-light, have a sneaking atheist leaning. My only interest would be to encourage him/her to be honest. I don't see why I would be interested in differentiating between catholics and protestants and anglicans etc. It is so tedious and boring and irrelevant.


  • #521
    Piliger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    ninja900 wrote: »
    Given that, there are still 98% of primary schools which are decidedly non-secular. To say, as the defenders of the faith have done here, that meaningful choice exists when only 2% of primary schools are secular is a nonsense.

    For the vast majority of parents there is no choice, or (as my children have) a choice between schools of one religion and a school of another. (And in our very large Dublin suburb, ALL secondary schools are RCC.)

    I cannot see how anyone in their right mind can disagree with this. They may find some argument to extend the percentage from 2% to a higher number because of individual schools that may be managed in an enlightened way by their heads and committees, but it is only a fiddling at the margins.


  • Advertisement
  • #522
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 40,107 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Piliger wrote: »
    Well I know that you pay far too much attention to christians as opposed to the many other flavours of theism. They are all the same. All deluded. All fantasists.

    I agree. But in Ireland, and for the time being, the only ones trying to dictate how my family should live are catholics.

    Oh yes you have pointed that out several times. And I have asked why you obsess with this question rather than why muslims or buddhists do the same.

    The muslims and buddhists (however (a) abhorrent or (b) laughable, I may consider their respective doctrines) don't bother me. They don't enforce a buddhist or muslim constitution and laws on me. They don't have overwhelming control of schools and insist that children of other faiths can only be admitted on sufferance and should be subject to indoctrination from 'the true faith'.

    Your belief that you have a right to tell people they are not a catholic or not a theist,in spite of them choosing that label, is rather odd imho.

    If people are clearly in violation of the doctrine which they espouse, we are quite entitled to call them out as hypocrites. It is our duty.
    As an atheist I don't grasp why I could possibly care about whether a catholic may not be a pure-bred catholic, or a catholic-light, have a sneaking atheist leaning. My only interest would be to encourage him/her to be honest. I don't see why I would be interested in differentiating between catholics and protestants and anglicans etc. It is so tedious and boring and irrelevant.

    I wouldn't care less either, were it not being used as justification for our shoddy sectarian system of education, and more besides.

    I'm partial to your abracadabra
    I'm raptured by the joy of it all



  • #523
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    alaimacerc wrote: »
    Ooooooohboy I'll bet you are, all right.

    Oh, good grief. Looks to me like you're the person seeing a Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy here. A conspiracy that ascribes either massive incompetence or watertight collusion of every polling organisation, and in which the bleedin' bishops are in cahoots with the mass media and Sinister Secular Forces to produce false reports (in professionally carried-out in-depth surveys, for crying out loud!) of large numbers of "Catholics" with no detectable Catholic belief or practice.


    Not alleged. At all.


    You mean like the documented indoctrination that not only occurs in 95% of state-sector schools, but that people such as yourself and IHtI in this thread have maintained is their inherent legal and religious right to maintain indefinitely? (That it's not very successful indoctrination by any sensible measure is another matter entirely.)


    Massive exercise in projection, there. You're the person insisting that the single question asked in the census is the gold standard for all matters of belief and religious practice, and that other sources, that go into considerably more specific detail, are to be trivialised and dismissed out of hand.


    You real need to look in the mirror, here. Especially when your only argument is to keep yell "Census! Best!" (when plainly it isn't) and that everyone else is "ignoring" it (which even more plainly they're not).



    And by "hidden" you presumably meant to type "well-documented, well-understood, and utterly in plain sight"?

    I'd be content to ascribe to your conspiracy theory involving hundreds-of-thousands of regular Irish households conspiring against athiests if you can a) provide your specific breakdown of religious affiliations in Ireland and b) if you can provide scientific evidence and references to support your theory.

    I am well aware that the internet is the home of truth and the census denial has been strong here but the surveying of the entire population vs 10 anonymous people saying they know someone who knows someone who heard about their granny filling in the census for their grandfather doesn't cut it.


  • #524
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    weisses wrote: »
    I did ... Couldn't find anything more reliable then the census other then opinions and other waffle ... You seem to know where the more reliable info is ... can you point out where ?

    What facts ?

    Im looking for facts from you regarding the census, but so far its only ill informed opinions your blurring out

    You are wasting your time Weisses. I've been asking for this information since the start.


  • #525
    Piliger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    I acept your points above.

    However I find this one decidedly 'dodgy' ....
    ninja900 wrote: »
    If people are clearly in violation of the doctrine which they espouse, we are quite entitled to call them out as hypocrites. It is our duty.


  • #526
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    You are wasting your time Weisses. I've been asking for this information since the start.

    And you're the very person leading on the charge to define the census as "best possible information", then asking for "better information than the census". Curiously enough, all the many sources of countervailing evidence as to actual belief and actual practice are then dismissed as "inaccurate" because they don't agree with the census. Funny, that. Which of us is wasting whose time?

    Yet to hear you respond meaningfully to any point of substance raised in this entire thread. The bishops' conference are convinced of the prevalence of "Catholics" that don't believe in god, much less any of the many other doctrines (much less actually warm a pew of their own volition). Why aren't you?


  • #527
    fergus1001
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,611 ✭✭✭fergus1001


    Doesn't matter who or what the majority is people have a right to freedom of choice and not have one majority faith dictate to the rest


    And religion and politics do not belong together


  • #528
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    ninja900 wrote: »
    It's true, unfortunately. It's difficult, if not impossible, to get definitively kicked out of the RCC :( at least, for a lay person.
    Excommunication is really just a temporary (from their POV) suspension from communion until you 'come to your senses'. It's not expulsion which seems to be the popularly held meaning.

    The distinction is fairly moot. Yes, it's not an "indelible change" or anything with sacramental significance, much less "de-baptism", just as "defrocking" is too just a matter of church discipline, and doesn't change anything "in the eyes of eternity", as one prelate rather obnoxiously commented about a sexually abusive priest that had been laicised. But if you filter out all the metaphysical stuff that's inherently beyond the realm of any "merely human" test. action, or verification, it's in effect (in principle temporary or reversible, as you say) expulsion from the church as a mortal religious body. Or "exclusion" as they might call it in secondary school...


  • #529
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    ninja900 wrote: »
    Someone else, in a post not quoted or referred to by me, yeah :rolleyes:
    True, but I wanted to be 100% lest it be an indirect comment on, or be seen in the context of, the earlier statement. Like I said, I haven't seen the "get your filthy atheist paws off our schools" types arguing this. (In fact, this don't seem to be arguing much at all, just putting their fingers in their ears and chanting "census, census, census, legal and religious rights, la-la-lalala."
    Edit: to put this to bed - whatever about the argument about whether ETs are secular (they're multi-denominational, not non-denominational, but the former is a legal requirement for state funding) I'm prepared to accept that they are secular.
    I'll grant you they wouldn't pass the test for secularism in the US, in France, or Turkey (all notorious religion-free zones, as I'm sure everyone is aware), but I'd certainly call them "secular enough to be getting along with for now". (And while I'm aware there's a distinction with the VECs (some more than others), I'd still say "darn sight matter than mandatory pseudo-monodenominationalism".)
    They do not promote any belief or non-belief above others.
    The VEC schools (or most of them, at least) would pass a test made on that basis too, I think.
    Given that, there are still 98% of primary schools which are decidedly non-secular. To say, as the defenders of the faith have done here, that meaningful choice exists when only 2% of primary schools are secular is a nonsense.
    If would be, if they had (or have) done. Mainly, though, they seem to be taking the "mind over matter" approach: they don't mind the status quo, and people ill-served by it don't matter. Witness the sneering about a hypothetically redesignated "Ivana Bacik National School". (Apparently the idea that it might just be named after a locality is too much for the Cradle Catholic imagination to bear. Obviously the Nasty Secularists can't be just abolishing saints, they must be canonising senators.)
    For the vast majority of parents there is no choice, or (as my children have) a choice between schools of one religion and a school of another. (And in our very large Dublin suburb, ALL secondary schools are RCC.)

    I entirely agree, both on the fact, and on the deeply unsatisfactory nature of this. A friend of mine is a board member on an ET national school here in Cork where there will be still be no ET (or any other such multi-denom) secondary by the time her eldest kid needs one. She's an atheist with a... vigour that would make my own lack of belief look like lily-livered compatiblism. Rest assured I'm been... made aware of the deficits of the provision here, were I not able to work this out for myself.


  • #530
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Piliger wrote: »
    I think it is to many people. And why is it weird for an Atheist to only care about Atheists and theists ? I would have thought it is standard form.
    Fine. Have a grand old time discussing it over at the "exactly what percentage of the population is "theist"?" thread with everyone already over there.
    It is no more off topic that your continual thing about assigning labels to people who are well able to assign a label to themselves. Your belief that you have a right to tell people they are not a catholic or not a theist,in spite of them choosing that label, is rather odd imho. And it is evident that the original fractured post of this thread confused christian and theist.
    I'm not denying anyone the right to identify as they wish. That's a lazy argument generally trotted out by people trying to characterise it as a "religious right" of not remotely religious people to describe themselves as "Catholic" on ethnographic lines, and then use the number of "Catholics" on that basis to argue for continued privileges for the Catholic" majority on that basis. Sure, the CoI argues vaguely similarly at times on the basis of being a "protected minority", but beyond those the comparisons have no meaning at all.

    The point is to distinguish, or at least to argue for the need to gain the means to more accurately distinguish in the future, between those for whom "Catholic" is a cultural identifier and nothing more, and those for whom it's a belief system, a practice, and for whom "ethos" in hospitals and indoctrination in schools is a political priority -- or, anywhere between those endpoints. (And likewise for the CoI, to a lesser extent.)

    As people (outside the very far fringe right) rarely argue about "ethnic Christians", and outside of this exact conversation never do so about "ethnic theists", your insistence on lumping them all together really has no currency or practical meaning. Indeed, almost the entire point of a "cultural" religious identifier is to distinguish from other religious identities. There's not a lot of call for irreligious Catholics and irreligious Protestants to band together to mock fifth generation atheists who've lost their cultural roots.
    As an atheist I don't grasp why I could possibly care about whether a catholic may not be a pure-bred catholic, or a catholic-light, have a sneaking atheist leaning. My only interest would be to encourage him/her to be honest. I don't see why I would be interested in differentiating between catholics and protestants and anglicans etc. It is so tedious and boring and irrelevant.
    You're certainly failing to grasp some key points, all right. 10% of Catholics don't just have "sneaking" atheist leaning, they Don't. Believe. In. God. Full. Stop. From a philosophical point of view, in still arguing with (and about) these people about being "theists", you quite literally aren't taking "yes" for an answer. They're not theists. Stop telling them that they are, while arguing that they ought not to be.


  • #531
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I'd be content to ascribe to your conspiracy theory

    Well, I don't have one. As I just pointed out in some detail. Either you really are paying even less attention to the content of the thread than previously suggested, or this is mere trolling. Either way, the rest of your post fails on its face, doesn't it?
    I am well aware that the internet is the home of truth and the census denial has been strong here but the surveying of the entire population vs 10 anonymous people saying they know someone who knows someone who heard about their granny filling in the census for their grandfather doesn't cut it.
    You obviously have an even lower opinion of the hierarchy than I do if you assume that's the basis for their belief in their own survey finding that 10% of "Catholics" don't believe in god!


  • Advertisement
  • #532
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Piliger wrote: »
    I acept your points above.

    However I find this one decidedly 'dodgy' ....
    ninja900 wrote: »
    If people are clearly in violation of the doctrine which they espouse, we are quite entitled to call them out as hypocrites. It is our duty.

    I think that's true to an extent, and fair enough to the point that it's true. If you're campaigning for segregated education, are a "Presbyterian" that hates Catholics, a "Catholic" that hates Episcopalians, and so on, but don't actually even believe in god, you're being quite the muppet, frankly. But I'm not sure that ticking a "religion" box on a census form really rises to the level of "espousing", in any meaningful sense.

    If it's allowed to be used by others for such purposes, you might regard it as a sort of "vicarious espousing", I suppose...


  • #533
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,823 ✭✭✭weisses


    alaimacerc wrote: »
    i.e. you found plenty (at least if you actually did look), but declared it out of hand to be "not more reliable than the census", because you've decided that the census is, inherently, more reliable than everything else. We've danced this dance in this thread before, you know.

    I did look .. I even posted a quote from a piece Robindch posted
    90 per cent of the poll described themselves as Catholic and only 2 per cent Protestant.

    All you are doing is dodging a simple question.


    alaimacerc wrote: »
    The fact of the huuuuuge amount of evidence for very significant numbers of people being declared to be "Catholic", and sharing no identifiable "Catholic" belief or practice, for starters.

    Again, why "regarding the census"? If the bishops run a survey and find 10% of "Catholics" are actually atheist, but it fails to add the magic words "regarding the census", then that's somehow has no validity about the actual population? We don't want evidence about the population, we want evidence about what the census says of the population? The census confirmation bias seems to be extending to the level of a game of "[Saint] Simon says."

    Again ( I almost feel like debating with a religious fanatic about religion) If you don't agree with the bloody census then provide some valid numbers that support your opinion.

    You believe the census is wrong, that's a wrong stance to take when talking facts


  • #534
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,823 ✭✭✭weisses


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    You are wasting your time Weisses. I've been asking for this information since the start.

    Yup denying factual data and replacing it with wishful thinking

    Indeed, waste of time looking for facts in the "religion and spirituality" section.


  • #535
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    weisses wrote: »
    [...] waste of time looking for facts in the "religion and spirituality" section.
    Does that apply to your posts too?


  • #536
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,823 ✭✭✭weisses


    robindch wrote: »
    Does that apply to your posts too?

    Don't know ... you tell me

    Had one simple question regarding the OP and the dismissal of the census figures.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88382024&postcount=351

    13 pages of mostly OT, opinionated discussion further and still not a remotely reliable answer

    So i think the answer to your question would be NO


  • #537
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 40,107 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    alaimacerc wrote: »
    But I'm not sure that ticking a "religion" box on a census form really rises to the level of "espousing", in any meaningful sense.

    No, I had in mind those who defend RC control of schools etc. while living only a nominally catholic (or 'cultural catholic') lifestyle themselves.
    If it's allowed to be used by others for such purposes, you might regard it as a sort of "vicarious espousing", I suppose...

    Yeah. The nominally catholic box-tickers (and the ex-catholic box-tickers) are being used to justify the status quo.


    What BB and others are vigorously dodging is the entirely flawed nature of this question. It is vague. No-one seems to agree what the question is actually asking. This is hand-waved away with talk of 'self-identification', but people are ticking this box for completely different reasons and in some cases others are ticking it for them.


    I'd be perfectly entitled to tick RC on the census. I know of people who are convinced that once a person has been baptised into the RCC, they must tick RC on the census and that's that.

    I'm an atheist, so I could write that in, but having to write stuff in at the bottom of the question takes effort.

    And atheists have no religion, so I could tick that box, too.

    The reason people tick RC could be historical, cultural, familial, as well as because of belief. It's also the first box so it's easy to just tick it and not think about it at all. It makes it a leading question. Having a religion is the default, and RC is the default religion.

    If we can't define what the question means and be sure that those filling it in understand what it is supposed to mean, how on earth can we think we are going to get accurate data from it?

    I'm partial to your abracadabra
    I'm raptured by the joy of it all



  • #538
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,858 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    @Brown Bomber: You are back again, so any response to this post?


  • #539
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,858 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    weisses wrote: »
    I did ... Couldn't find anything more reliable then the census other then opinions and other waffle ... You seem to know where the more reliable info is ... can you point out where ?

    You are ignoring the point, made many times already, that the census only measures how many people self identify as catholic and other religions (even assuming we agree that that part of the census is filled out by each individual). The census is no measure of whether or not those people are actually catholic (or whatever religion they put down) or not. Given that church attendance amongst catholics in Ireland is down to 30% as of 2011, a figure reported by the Iona Institute (a figure only unreliable in that it is likely to be a gross overestimate rather than an underestimate), we can clearly see the weakness in the census figures.


  • #540
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,823 ✭✭✭weisses


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    You are ignoring the point, made many times already, that the census only measures how many people self identify as catholic and other religions (even assuming we agree that that part of the census is filled out by each individual). The census is no measure of whether or not those people are actually catholic (or whatever religion they put down) or not. Given that church attendance amongst catholics in Ireland is down to 30% as of 2011, a figure reported by the Iona Institute (a figure only unreliable in that it is likely to be a gross overestimate rather than an underestimate), we can clearly see the weakness in the census figures.

    That's the point ... You can believe the census is wrong, you can have an opinion on other figures from the census but as long no one is actually showing some evidence that support your hypothesis we have to go with the census figures

    We all know atheists opposed the 2011 census even before it was held.

    So I'm not ignoring the points raised, I just don't take as fact the believes/opinions and here-say applied to the validity of the census figures


  • Advertisement
  • #541
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    weisses wrote: »
    That's the point ... You can believe the census is wrong, you can have an opinion on other figures from the census but as long no one is actually showing some evidence that support your hypothesis we have to go with the census figures

    We all know atheists opposed the 2011 census even before it was held.

    So I'm not ignoring the points raised, I just don't take as fact the believes/opinions and here-say applied to the validity of the census figures

    You don't take it as fact that genealogists find errors in the census returns?

    You believe that those who are here illegally fill out the census?

    Really?


Advertisement