Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

swampgas · 12-01-2014 07:53PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The penalty has much to do with it.

I have chosen to be a member of boards.ie forum. Boards.ie has accepted my membership. This relationship will continue until a) I close my account or b) The authorities site-ban me (penalty).

I will still be a member if only log on once a year or incur many bans and break many rules without getting site-banned.

That's not really a good comparison. Boards is a discussion forum. The management / administrators of boards don't dictate to members what their morals should be or how they should live their lives.

Do you think you could claim to be a member of the KKK if you were somehow signed up but didn't attend any meetings or agree with any of their stated values? And even if you could, why would you?

Brown Bomber · 12-01-2014 08:04PM

swampgas wrote: »

That's not really a good comparison. Boards is a discussion forum. The management / administrators of boards don't dictate to members what their morals should be or how they should live their lives.

Do you think you could claim to be a member of the KKK if you were somehow signed up but didn't attend any meetings or agree with any of their stated values? And even if you could, why would you?

I believe it is a valid comparison. Both are societies with members who join of their own free will, can disassociate of their own free will and can/will be removed by the authorites should their actions warrant it.

swampgas · 12-01-2014 08:10PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I believe it is a valid comparison. Both are societies with members who join of their own free will, can disassociate of their own free will and can/will be removed by the authorites should their actions warrant it.

But if someone tells me they are a member of boards, it tells me nothing about their beliefs or values. If someone tells me they are a member of the KKK, or Golden Dawn, or the SWP, or Opus Dei, I can infer quite a lot about that person's values.

If someone who hunts whales for a living tells me he is a member of Greenpeace and PETA, I think I can legitimately raise questions about the sincerity of his membership.

Brown Bomber · 12-01-2014 08:11PM

alaimacerc wrote: »

... Did you somehow fail to notice that in the post you managed to ignore almost all of that I yet again told you where this came from?

In the faint hope that the 17th time is the charm, I'll say it again for the slow of reading comprehension: the Conference of Bishop's survey of belief in self-identified Catholics.

I fully expect you to just ignore this, and ask the same question in a couple of page's time. Or else to say "The bishops, what do they know? Credulous fools, and all part of the the Vast Secular Conspiracy."

Wonderful.

Let me remind you of your claim:

Person tells the census that they're "Catholic"
.Same person tells a survey conducted by the bishop's conference they don't believe in god. (Among various other things I'll spare you, in the interests of getting a straight answer to this one point you've dodged every time to this point.) We have direct evidence this has happened

So could you please provide this "direct" evidence that you claim to "have" of this "same person" not believing in God in the 2008 Bishop's survey and answering "Catholic" in the census.

Cheers.

Penn · 12-01-2014 08:12PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The penalty has much to do with it.

I have chosen to be a member of boards.ie forum. Boards.ie has accepted my membership. This relationship will continue until a) I close my account or b) The authorities site-ban me (penalty).

I will still be a member if only log on once a year or incur many bans and break many rules without getting site-banned.

And what if Boards.ie removes option A? Even if you never log in again, you're still counted as a member by Boards.

So if Boards goes to the bank looking for a loan based on the number of members they have as part of their business plan, even though some of those members no longer want to be counted as members... See the problem?

Nodin · 12-01-2014 08:13PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The penalty has much to do with it.

I have chosen to be a member of boards.ie forum. Boards.ie has accepted my membership. This relationship will continue until a) I close my account or b) The authorities site-ban me (penalty).

I will still be a member if only log on once a year or incur many bans and break many rules without getting site-banned.

....simplistic tosh. If you don't live in accordance with catholic beliefs, how can you profess to be a catholic in good standing with the church?

alaimacerc · 12-01-2014 08:18PM

weisses wrote: »

I will take this slowly back to you .... tell me when I'm going to fast!!

Where did you get the information it went as you described above ?

I don't get what it is about this piece of information that people aren't seeing. Maybe the sentences are too long. Let me add some pauses.

Survey.
Conducted by.
The Bishops'.
Conference.

And I seem to recall various surveys being cited earlier in the thread. When no simply ignored, the tactic seems to be to yell "Surveys don't count! Census, census, census, la-la-la!"

I heard someone filled in "no religion" and yet there were 3 more people in the household who where religious.

There are several distinct sources of "inaccuracy" in these exercises.

a) People can lie, on because of themselves and others. That's true in the census as well as in surveys. Personally I'm pretty confident about which direction people are lying in, and it's not the Vest Secular Conspiracy, either. But we have no evidence of this beyond anecdote (albeit some a lot more direct and less flimsy-sounding than yours).

b) There's sampling error, which is a feature of surveys, but not of the census, obviously. Contrary to the Statistical Denialist, though, this is actually quantifiable. If you randomly sample 1000 people out of four million, it does not, contrary to the burden-shifters, maybe tell you something about the thousand, and nothing at all about the other 3,999,000. Seriously, basic distribution of sample error stats. Go look it up, since clearly you're not prepared to believe us godless heathens about it.

c) Lastly, there's ambiguity in the questions, or errors of interpretation of the answers. That's at its highest when you ask just one question, and no followup at all about any of the possible interpretations of it. If you ask someone "are you a [denomination]?", and some people are answering according to belief and practice, some on belief without the practice, and some on "affiliation" with neither belief nor practice, a decent survey would ask supplementals to tease out the prevalence of each. The census doesn't do that. Therefore, we have to rely on evidence from other sources to estimate those. Simples.

TheChizler · 12-01-2014 08:20PM

Penncil Dick wrote: »

And what if Boards.ie removes option A? Even if you never log in again, you're still counted as a member by Boards.

So if Boards goes to the bank looking for a loan based on the number of members they have as part of their business plan, even though some of those members no longer want to be counted as members... See the problem?

Or for a different argument, your membership will be suspended if you fail to log in once a week, discuss certain things from one point of view/hold certain opinions etc. unless you go to moderators for penance.

alaimacerc · 12-01-2014 08:24PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So could you please provide this "direct" evidence that you claim to "have" of this "same person" not believing in God in the 2008 Bishop's survey and answering "Catholic" in the census.

The evidence is that they also told the bishops' survey they're Catholic. Did they change their mind between the one and the other? Did they lie? Are you Gregory House when it comes to pieces of information you dislike, and Forrest Gump when it comes to things you do? Because that's certainly how it comes across.

Or to phrase it the way you would:

Provide direct proof of people lying to the census. Provide proof of people lying to the bishops' survey. Provide exact numbers in each case. Waste open-ended amounts of time doing so. Expect contemptuous dismissal of your efforts.

Piliger · 12-01-2014 08:25PM

swampgas wrote: »

So, if most self-styled Irish Catholics are Catholic in name only, and refuse to be dictated to by the church hierarchy as to how they should live their lives, why do they even bother to be Catholic at all? Is it supposed to be some kind of group identifier? Normally when people claim to belong to a particular group which espouses certain ethical or moral positions, they actually do agree with the most of the publicly stated positions of that organisation.

If a member of political party A finds that their personal position is much closer to party B, they may very well resign from one and join the other, or if they stay within their own party, they try to change it from within. Normally you wouldn't claim that you can label yourself a communist just because you want to, while simultaneously claiming that socialism is a load of nonsense.

With Irish cultural Catholics, they are neither following the stated tenets of the church, nor are they making any meaningful effort to change the church's position.

It's a weird, contradictory, apathetic and utterly illogical position to take.

No - it's a complete inability by you to grasp or understand what the catholic church is about and how people chose identity and feel identity.

No offense, but in my view this is a story of your faults , not that of the catholic church in this instance. And you comment about illogic is ironical in the light of the topic of christianity ...

Piliger · 12-01-2014 08:26PM

Nodin wrote: »

....simplistic tosh. If you don't live in accordance with catholic beliefs, how can you profess to be a catholic in good standing with the church?

You just don't get it do you :rolleyes: Not even close.

Nodin · 12-01-2014 08:28PM

Piliger wrote: »

You just don't get it do you :rolleyes: Not even close.

Well, if you'd forgo being obnoxious for once and explain it to me......

alaimacerc · 12-01-2014 08:28PM

weisses wrote: »

Please stop crying foul,

... please stop fouling?

You couldn't possible know what i accept, for that you actually need to present something.

I present the repeated citations of survey evidence, and the repeated ignoring, scoffing at, and dismissal of it by you and your ilk.

alaimacerc · 12-01-2014 08:38PM

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Since about 350 A.D.

The catholic church has the same power to declare what constitute the criteria to be a catholic as the Irish state has to declare the criteria for Irish citizenship. They feckin' own the club after all.

And even more especially post the Great and Western Schisms, when you have to worry about not just the "not Christian" types, but the "maybe Christians, kinda-sorta, but not the right sort".

Brown Bomber · 12-01-2014 08:41PM

Penncil Dick wrote: »

And what if Boards.ie removes option A? Even if you never log in again, you're still counted as a member by Boards.

So if Boards goes to the bank looking for a loan based on the number of members they have as part of their business plan, even though some of those members no longer want to be counted as members... See the problem?

It's a two-way relationship. There needs to be a desire to be included in the society and acceptance of the membership from the society in question.

If either side wishes the break this relationship then it doesn't matter if the other wants to continue it.

It's irrelevant anyway as if the person wants to remove themselves as a member of boards there are hardly likely to declare themselves as members in a survey.

Brown Bomber · 12-01-2014 08:46PM

alaimacerc wrote: »

The evidence is that they also told the bishops' survey they're Catholic. Did they change their mind between the one and the other? Did they lie? Are you Gregory House when it comes to pieces of information you dislike, and Forrest Gump when it comes to things you do? Because that's certainly how it comes across.
.

You tell me. You are the one making the claim.

So how did you come into this "direct evidence" that you have but refuse to share?

Got men on the inside? Hacked into the CSO and the MRBI's computers. Could you at least send it to wikileaks anonymously so we can all see it?

Piliger · 12-01-2014 08:55PM

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Since about 350 A.D.

The catholic church has the same power to declare what constitute the criteria to be a catholic as the Irish state has to declare the criteria for Irish citizenship. They feckin' own the club after all.

Can we see evidence of that ? or are you just making things up again ?

Brown Bomber · 12-01-2014 08:56PM

Jernal wrote: »

The point was explicitly that if someone denies the Holy Spirit it's almost impossible to consider them a Christian. As you rightly pointed out. Catholicism is part of Christianity though you can't not be a Christian but still be Catholic. Hope this clarifies.

Jernal, I meant to respond to your initial post on this but I can't find it now.

What you are saying is different to what Mark Hamill is saying and I'd largely agree with you, but there are some Grey areas. For example, I was raised in a Christian household and went to a Christian Brothers school and I don't really know what the Holy Spirit is. If I was a Catholic and know no more about it than I do now then I wouldn't neccessarily associate the Holy Spirit with Catholicism. I think you need to separate ignorance from outright rejection of doctrine where you would start to enter in schism territory.

Piliger · 12-01-2014 08:56PM

Nodin wrote: »

Well, if you'd forgo being obnoxious for once and explain it to me......

Trying to point out how wildly inaccurate your perception of religion and identity is. You may find it obnoxious, but it is just reality.

Piliger · 12-01-2014 08:59PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It's a two-way relationship. There needs to be a desire to be included in the society and acceptance of the membership from the society in question.

If either side wishes the break this relationship then it doesn't matter if the other wants to continue it.

It's irrelevant anyway as if the person wants to remove themselves as a member of boards there are hardly likely to declare themselves as members in a survey.

So we have a situation where people are choosing to identifying themselves as catholic in the census, and an organisation choosing to count them as members ..... yet some people say NO ... you can't do that ! it's not ... fair ! it's not ... right ! I don't agree ! Hilarious.

Nodin · 12-01-2014 09:04PM

Piliger wrote: »

Trying to point out how wildly inaccurate your perception of religion and identity is. You may find it obnoxious, but it is just reality.

I was referring to your posting style, just to be clear.

Certain things are expected of a Catholic, in order to be in full communion with the church. These range from observance of certain rituals and belief in certain articles of faith. Non-observance, disbelief etc mean the person is not, in fact, acting as a Roman catholic. They may believe that they are, but its not the case.

Brown Bomber · 12-01-2014 09:10PM

Piliger wrote: »

So we have a situation where people are choosing to identifying themselves as catholic in the census, and an organisation choosing to count them as members ..... yet some people say NO ... you can't do that ! it's not ... fair ! it's not ... right ! I don't agree ! Hilarious.

It's also extremely arrogant with a very strong hint of sour grapes.

Actually, I have a question. Assuming he is guilty, is the kid on trial for the Boston Bombings an Islamic terrorist? Is he even a Muslim???

Days 298 · 12-01-2014 09:45PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It's also extremely arrogant with a very strong hint of sour grapes.

Actually, I have a question. Assuming he is guilty, is the kid on trial for the Boston Bombings an Islamic terrorist? Is he even a Muslim???

Yes and Hitler was a Catholic.

Mark Hamill · 12-01-2014 10:34PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Final time now.
Belief (thinking) and ritual (doing) or not the same thing.

Consider the devout Catholic co-habiting with their long-term partner who doesn't want to get married for personal reasons and the atheist who gets a Catholic wedding for personal reasons.

Except when the belief includes the belief that you have to do the ritual. Giving examples of people doing the ritual without belief (and who therefore are not catholics) supports my argument not yours. You said it yourself "A belief in a ritual is still a belief", and if catholics are supposed to believe X, and X is "do this ritual weekly" and they don't, then we can say that people who don't believe that are not catholics.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Actually you do.
You are claiming that every instance of failure to comply with every aspect of the set of instructions set out in the Cathecism results in the "sinner" instantly becoming de-Catholicised.

Provide references if that is the case instead of stating your opinion as fact,

Already explained this, ignoring it wont make it go away:
your argument falls apart under its own inanity. Lets say that the doctrine is just a guide and it doesn't actually matter if someone follows any of it. Does it matter if anyone follows any of it? Can we not just declare all as catholics regardless of what they say or do? Bless the rain clouds and baptise everyone and then everyone is catholic regardless of what they actually believe or do (its not like catholics wait for the babies permission to baptise them after all). You would save everyone from eternal hell.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

OK, I am going to repeat myself once again and hopes it sinks in this time.

The relationship between an individual and their Church is a private one and has sweet **** all to do with you or me.

While you seem to have appointed yourself as the final authority on who is and isn't a Catholic your opinion doesn't count. If an individual freely opts-in to a society and this society accepts them they are legitimate members until one of two things happen. 1) The individual opts-out of the society 2) The societies authorities exclude them.

If catholic can mean anyone regardless of belief or ritual, then "catholic" is a meaningless word. The relationship between a person and their church is not private, its why we have a specific label for it, hence we ask people for their label in the census, hence the church will use the numbers of self labelled people to argue that they have significant support. Words exist outside your head, you can't use your own internal subjective meanings in the public sphere and expect anyone else to be able to discuss them with you. How is anyone supposed to know what you mean by catholic if catholic means nothing? This is not me claiming an authority, no more than me telling someone the first letter in a sentence is capitalised is mean claiming an authority - its how communication works among humans, words and their meanings are social constructs, they have to be to be in any way useful.

So, again, this time without the utter BS deflections: At what point does a persons complete contempt and disdain for catholic doctrine actually stop them from being a catholic?

Mark Hamill · 12-01-2014 10:38PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So in your head 100% of Catholics attend mass.

100% of catholics are obliged to attend mass. I'm sure a small percentage are too infirm or have unforeseen distractions that stop them attending, but you can't say its anywhere near 70%.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Can you point out a single precedent where a Catholic was excluded from the Church for not attending mass?

Or is this another case of "I don't have to provide any references"?

This would be the same church that doesn't even exclude people for not following the pope, yes? That the church doesn't even follow its own rules properly (why would they, when it would obliterate their numbers?) is no argument that said rules do not exist.

Nodin · 12-01-2014 10:39PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Except when the belief includes the belief that you have to do the ritual. Giving examples of people doing the ritual without belief (and who therefore are not catholics) supports my argument not yours. You said it yourself "A belief in a ritual is still a belief", and if catholics are supposed to believe X, and X is "do this ritual weekly" and they don't, then we can say that people who don't believe that are not catholics.

Indeed. The church is rather specific as to whats required to be in good standing. Somebody who doesn't believe in transubstantiation and rejects the authority of the pope may consider themselves a Catholic, but de facto is not.

Mark Hamill · 12-01-2014 10:39PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Could you explain why the opinions of a bunch of atheists on the internet carries more weight than the individual themselves in making a personal decision that relates solely to the individual?

Because words exist outside of peoples heads.

weisses · 12-01-2014 10:41PM

oops

Mark Hamill · 12-01-2014 10:59PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So could you please provide this "direct" evidence that you claim to "have" of this "same person" not believing in God in the 2008 Bishop's survey and answering "Catholic" in the census.

Cheers.

I don't know if this is the same survey, but it is a bishops conference survey. It has a very interesting graph on page 12 though:

This is survey of catholics in the Republic of Ireland, done by the Irish Catholic's Bishops Conference (reported in 2010), showing that 10.1% of catholics do not believe in god. Given that everyone in the country fills out their own section in the census, this means that ~10% of the self-identified catholics in this country do not believe in god.

Piliger · 12-01-2014 11:38PM

Nodin wrote: »

Non-observance, disbelief etc mean the person is not, in fact, acting as a Roman catholic. They may believe that they are, but its not the case.

Says you. Show us any meaningful significant reference to where the pope says this. He makes the rules after all, 'cos god talks to him.

Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

Comments