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…2728303233…70

Comments

  • #872
    Piliger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    This has been debunked in detail before. It cannot be dismissed as just some posters personal experiences when independent survey after survey of catholics in the republic of Ireland show support for things specifically decried in the church, like abortion, equal rights for homosexuals and contraception, not to mention the Bishops Conference Survey showing that over 10% of catholic's not believing in god.

    Well you are entitled to your views ... but personally do not believe a single tihng that the RCC would claim or publish - their credibility level is sub-zero and your willingness to believe any of this sh1t is the most incredulous thing of all.


  • #873
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Piliger wrote: »
    Well you are entitled to your views ... but personally do not believe a single tihng that the RCC would claim or publish - their credibility level is sub-zero and your willingness to believe any of this sh1t is the most incredulous thing of all.
    Why exactly would the bishops conference fake the fact that 10% of Catholics don't believe in god?


  • #874
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 40,107 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Piliger wrote: »
    Where did I say anything about hatred ? Don't put words in my mouth please. I said " They are entitled to have their own ignorant and deluded views."

    Nope, this is what you said:
    Piliger wrote: »
    a) I couldn't give a monkeys what a bunch of stupid offensive people think or say. It's called free speech.

    Backpedalling.

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



  • #875
    Piliger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    ninja900 wrote: »
    Nope, this is what you said:



    Backpedalling.

    No. I belief in the right of people to be offensive. It's free speech.

    I didn't say "whatever hatred they like".

    Back-pedalling ... :D


  • #876
    Piliger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    King Mob wrote: »
    Why exactly would the bishops conference fake the fact that 10% of Catholics don't believe in god?

    Why would they lie about child rapists ? child abusers ? Why would they hide those rapists ? Why would they do anything ? Isn't that question a bit 'moot' at this point in time ? :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #877
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Piliger wrote: »
    Well you are entitled to your views ... but personally do not believe a single tihng that the RCC would claim or publish - their credibility level is sub-zero and your willingness to believe any of this sh1t is the most incredulous thing of all.

    Oh for...

    Look, I brought that survey up because a) it was an all-population survey, as opposed to for example student opinion, and b) precisely because it was published by the RCC, and hence harder for the "secular liberal conspiracy" types insisting on an uncritical acceptance of the census returns at face value to dismiss.

    If you're intent on derailing the entire thread with "more atheist than thou" grandstanding -- and for many, many pages now that seems to be exactly what been happening -- can I suggest you find your own estimates as to the prevalence of lack-of-belief, and we can discuss those? Because just yelling at everyone isn't really proving especially productive (surprisingly). These numbers if the BC survey don't seem out of line with others to me, and together they very much paint a picture of the census counting many as "Catholic" who are clearly not Catholic in belief. Hence the AI campaigns for more useful census answers; hence this entire thread.


  • #878
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Piliger wrote: »
    Why would they lie about child rapists ? child abusers ? Why would they hide those rapists ? Why would they do anything ? Isn't that question a bit 'moot' at this point in time ? :rolleyes:

    No it's not. You're using the idea that they are untrustworthy to reject the study (as well as the independent surveys) but it makes no sense. So the question stands.

    They would lie about the sex abuse as the truth would be damaging to them. However I see no plausible reason why them lying about there being a large percentage of Catholics who don't believe in God would be beneficial to them. If fact I see it as damaging.

    So I'm asking you to provide a good reason for why you think they would make this figure up.
    But I don't think you can provide an answer as it's more likely that your comment is an attempt to deflect and reject facts you don't like. So feel free to show me that's not the case.

    Do you think that all 90% of the people in Ireland agree with the stances of the church on issues like gay marriage, abortion, condoms and so on?


  • #879
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Piliger wrote: »
    You just don't get what identity and religion mean to people. It's not about a club. It is about identity. The admin of these religions do not 'own' the religion. No religion operates like this. The religions are held by the people and the admin just act as celebrants and admin people. Yes they make rules, but not rules whereby people are excluded for not obeying them, except in exception situations. They do not HAVE THAT POWER because they do not own the religion! Again the anology with 'clubs' is a wholly misguided one.
    That's not necessarily so. It just so happens that the largest Christian denominations in this part of the world do operate pretty a "once in, always in"/"open house" type of regime as far their own disciplinary rules and theology is concerned. So the person's own preferred "affiliation" holds good, in terms of what "affiliation" tells you. (i.e., not necessarily anything about their belief, religious practices, or what they think government policy should be on "moral" issues, schools and hospitals, or what should be in the President's season address.) That's not necessarily true of every religion, though. (Try getting the wrong side of the JW, the Scientologists, the Free Presbs, or the Mormons, for the sake of comparison.)
    People see these religions as 'theirs' to interpret more or less as they see fit. So people who disagree with the RCC about contraception and abortion and some of the body-of-christ and rising from the dead stuff .... still identify with the religion because they feel that that stuff is either outdated, intended to be a parable etc... They identify with the 'culture' and 'identity' of the religion at a much more basic level.

    Do I think that 'counting' everyone who ticks the RCC tickbox is a valid argument for anything much other than a claim that X number of people feel and identify with being RCC ? NO. But that is a DIFFERENT question.
    No, that's the question we're actually addressing. I heard a public talk by someone from ET in which they said they identified about seven "categories" of Catholicism, according to actual belief and practice. (They didn't elaborate on what they were, so nor can I.)

    In particular, while logically "Catholic" implies "Christian", it's not necessarily the case (as I pointed out before) that everyone would identify on that basis. (Indeed, I've heard several people say as much.)


  • #880
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Piliger wrote: »
    Replace the RCC with the Boy Scouts. If the BS said to the Ministers they could not come to jamboree if they voted for gay marriage .... is that coercion ? No. No. No.

    It's certainly discriminatory, and acting in conflict with the Equal Status Act (at least on the face of it -- your lawyer may argue differently) in a manner that's incompatible with the purpose of the organisation (i.e., it's not expressly a political body). So whether it's "coercive" or not is rather arguing semantics about what particular type of improper or impermissible action it is, rather than whether it's proper and permissible or not.


  • #881
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Actually I was hoping you would and then the penny would drop for you. I'll rephrase. Do you know the difference between illustrative (Bishop's survey) and comprehensive (census)?
    This will go a lot more smoothly if you just attempt to make whatever argument you may or may not actually have, as opposed to attempting to laboriously maneuver into a position where you can presume to condescend to be telling me something you imagine I'm in need of explanation of.

    Random surveys are not merely "illustrative". I covered what they tell us in some detail some while ago. You persist in writing it off as "speculation", "illustration", "inaccurate", and coming up with fanciful interpretations of what they actually mean, but you're advanced no actual basis for any of these. (For the very good reason that no such bases actually exist, and that surveys do in fact tell as what they tell us, within the limits of statistical accuracy as it's been explained to you several times now.)
    If this is your so-called "direct evidence" then you don't have direct evidence I am afraid. You have speculation.

    No, it's evidence, and it's pretty darn direct. What you have is not rebuttal of said evidence, it's mere contrary assertion.


  • Advertisement
  • #882
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Do you think it's a trivial matter to get 1,200,000,000 or so people to believe exactly the same thing on every question of faith and morals. It's impossible, that's what it is.

    Granted. Stipulated! But that's a rod they've made for their own backs, so I'm not sure it's such a great line of argument for "poor them, excuse them their unfeasible definitions".

    At the very least, it seems reasonable to expect that for someone's protestations to be a "Catholic" to be taken seriously by any objective third party, a) their beliefs would at least minimally identify them as a Trinitarian Christian, and b) their beliefs should at least somewhat distinguish them from other Trinitarian Christian denominations. Otherwise, they're by any reasonable test just an atheist or a protestant warming a pew. Or more likely, not warming a pew at all.
    But I respect people's right to say they are pretty much whatever they like, just becasue they can. Live and let live. Yeah, sure, some people will be fooling themselves, but so what. If all that does is anger pedantic people with a chip on their shoulders about the RCC, that's no biggie.

    And it makes for great astroturfing by statistical proxy, so win-win from your POV!


  • #883
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    It's strawman after strawman with you.
    A striking assertion, given a source. And not "striking" in a good way, either.
    "Don't know" means unsure or undecided. Not "yes" or "no".
    The yes/no question is the one you were trying to deflect attention away from, recall. If you want to discuss "God exists, yes/no?", let's go back to that one. This was a "best describes" question. (And not an especially tricky multiple choice exercise, if one is trying to recall "which of these four would the local priest say I should be saying?")

    Let's recap. We're talking about people who have described themselves as Catholic. Remember, that famous 84% in the census. When asked that particular question about the existence and nature of god, which is rather "point number one" in terms of what characterises Catholic belief. You're now suggesting that answering "not sure what to think" to that is somehow good evidence of sound Catholic belief? Well, no, you're simply cherrypicking it to massage "Catholic atheists" down, without any critical attention to the nature of the other options that support is "leaking" to.
    This is getting ****ing ridiculous now.
    I'll say.


  • #884
    vibe666
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭vibe666


    This is the whole problem and why things need to change.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/for-children-with-no-baptismal-certificate-the-school-gates-seem-to-be-closed-1.1624522
    My son, who will be four years old in March, is not baptised. He has been rejected from all four national schools in our area – Dublin 6.
    I put his name down for all of them, two of them religious schools, when he was a baby.

    The little Church of Ireland school, which is the nearest one to our home, has had his name on its application list since he was six weeks old. In its letter last month the board of management “regrets to inform” me that my application has been “unsuccessful”.

    Emily Logan, Ombudsman for Children: Raises concern about a proposed power for schools to refuse admission to a child based on the advice of the HSE or An Garda Síochána.

    For children with no baptismal certificate the school gates seem to be closed
    “I am still baffled at the inertia shown with regard to removing the education of so many of our children from the control of the Catholic church.”

    Religious control of schools is neither tolerant nor inclusive
    “Your child is currently number 177 on our waiting list . . . All offers of places were made in accordance with the school enrolment policy.”
    The criteria according to which children can get in the queue are then set out. There are 11 categories, the first being “Church of Ireland children of the [local] parishes,” followed by “COI siblings/Protestant siblings” followed by COI children from outside the parishes. Next in are COI children from inter-church marriages, then other Protestant children, then other siblings, then children of inter-church marriages where the child is not COI, children of staff, Roman Catholic Children, Orthodox children and last, the category into which my son falls,
    “other children”.


  • #885
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    Are these people catholic?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Hook
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Skinner
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_O%27Brien
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jackson_(bishop)

    I'll give you a few clues.

    One is a unmarried father with a reputation for shagging anything in sight in his younger days. One is a confirmed agnostic who knows more about the catholic church than most of us on here talking about it. One is a RCC cardinal who's admitted that his sexual conduct had at times "fallen beneath the standards expected of him." And one is an Archbishop of the Church of Ireland, a church that claims to be catholic in nature and have direct apostolic succession.

    So, let the judges judge. Who's a catholic or who's just kidding themselves? Who has no right to call themselves catholic?

    ......or do any of us have a right to say that?


  • #886
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,179 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Why would an agnostic or an Archbishop of the COI be viewed as Roman Catholic? :confused:

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #887
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 28,656 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    SW wrote: »
    Why would an agnostic or an Archbishop of the COI be viewed as Roman Catholic? :confused:

    because I Heart Internet wants them to be catholic? :pac:


  • #888
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    vibe666 wrote: »
    This is the whole problem and why things need to change.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/for-children-with-no-baptismal-certificate-the-school-gates-seem-to-be-closed-1.1624522


    So the child was registererd for "all" of the national schools in the are - two of which were religious ethos schools. The excerpt you posted (or the report) doesn't say how many/what type of other schools also rejected the application.

    Since schools will accept pupils if they have space, surely the issue here is lack of school places in an area.

    What the writer is looking for, it seems, is for his/her child to get a place at the expense of someone elses child. More to the point, they want their child to attend a school run by a religious community (of a religion they don't share) at the expense of a child from said religious community.

    Furthermore, the primary school in question is one of a minority faith (CoI).

    Nonsense. The problem (in this case) is lack of school spaces. Not entrance criteria.


  • #889
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    SW wrote: »
    Why would an agnostic or an Archbishop of the COI be viewed as Roman Catholic? :confused:

    My point is that there is a rich tapestry of belief and faith and non-belief and culture. To demand (as many do on here) that people should be 100% X or 100% Y is not living in the real world.

    The agnostic in question here identifies himself as an agnostic, he talks very regularly in defence of RCC teaching. Many CoI people consider themselves to be part of the broader Catholic tradition (if not RC). A portion of the CoE has made a transition across to the RCC under a novel scheme called the http://www.ordinariate.org.uk/

    A myriad of possibilities - all designed (one might think) to enrage pedants who simply can't stand shades of grey.


  • #890
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 28,656 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    So the child was registererd for "all" of the national schools in the are - two of which were religious ethos schools. The excerpt you posted (or the report) doesn't say how many/what type of other schools also rejected the application.

    Since schools will also accept pupils if they have space, surely the issue here is lack of school places in an area.

    What the writer is looking for, it seems, is for his/her child to get a place at the expense of someone elses child. More to the point, they want their child to attend a school run by a religious community (of a religion they don't share) at the expense of a child from said religious community.

    Furthermore, the school in question is one of a minority faith (CoI).

    Nonsense. The problem (in this case) is lack of school spaces. Not entrance criteria.


    I Heart Internet, you are trying to argue against a very well documented issue that exists in Ireland.

    In fairness you make yourself look desperate as well and you should really learn when to accept that the catholic ethos thing clearly has failings when it comes to punishing children that have not been christianed.

    Even the Ombudsman For Children has called this out as a serious issue for concern,

    Its also not just young children, the Catholic ethos has also been documented for a reason to refuse admission to a 16 year old who was pregnant and also used as a reason to fire a teacher in the past for being pregnant outside of marriage.

    The teacher case in particular still has a legal standing which is of great concern to many teachers, esp those that are gay as the same ethos excuse could be used to fire them also. Again all very well documented.


  • #891
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,179 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    So the child was registererd for "all" of the national schools in the are - two of which were religious ethos schools. The excerpt you posted (or the report) doesn't say how many/what type of other schools also rejected the application.

    Since schools will accept pupils if they have space, surely the issue here is lack of school places in an area.

    What the writer is looking for, it seems, is for his/her child to get a place at the expense of someone elses child. More to the point, they want their child to attend a school run by a religious community (of a religion they don't share) at the expense of a child from said religious community.

    Furthermore, the primary school in question is one of a minority faith (CoI).

    Nonsense. The problem (in this case) is lack of school spaces. Not entrance criteria.

    The parents put their child down when he was a baby. And it's quite possible that the boy lost out on a place to a religious kid who was registered after him due to the religious preference for potential students.

    It's a nonsense situation as parents have to hope that kids of other religious groups don't push children of the "wrong" religion out of their place in the list.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • #892
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 16,153 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    So the child was registererd for "all" of the national schools in the are - two of which were religious ethos schools. The excerpt you posted (or the report) doesn't say how many/what type of other schools also rejected the application.

    From the article
    The other two other schools, one a non-denominational Gaelscoil and the other multi-denominational, should surely be more welcoming and as I had his name down with the multi-d since he was three weeks old I was hopeful. However when I called I was told he was “about 220th on the list”. The enrolment secretary told me parents travelled from across Dublin to enrol their children there, such is the demand. Again at at the Gaelscoil, with parents travelling from across the city to get their kids in, he’s 239th on the waiting list.

    Basically the demand for schools without a religious ethos is so high that their waiting lists are typically among the longest.
    Since schools will also accept pupils if they have space, surely the issue here is lack of school places in an area.

    Many people are willing to travel longer distances to get their children into multi-denominational schools, which mean local places get exhausted quicker. It basically further highlights the imbalance in favour of religious schools.
    What the writer is looking for, it seems, is for his/her child to get a place at the expense of someone elses child. More to the point, they want their child to attend a school run by a religious community (of a religion they don't share) at the expense of a child from said religious community.

    Furthermore, the school in question is one of a minority faith (CoI).

    Nonsense. The problem (in this case) is lack of school spaces. Not entrance criteria.

    The writer is simply looking to get her child into any local state funded school, without being discriminated against on the grounds of her religion. It seems entirely unreasonable that this discrimination should be allowed outside of privately funded privately run schools.

    Bottom line is the state should not be funding religious discrimination, which it clearly is here.

    Boards.ie need your help to survive, subscribe here



  • #893
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    And one is an Archbishop of the Church of Ireland, a church that claims to be catholic in nature and have direct apostolic succession.
    The word means "all-encompassing" and within the COI if sometimes spelled "catholick" to distinguish it from the other lot of "all-encompassing" catholics.


  • #894
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    A myriad of possibilities - all designed (one might think) to enrage pedants who simply can't stand shades of grey.
    You've already been corrected on this at least once -- people here are laughing at the catholics who can't agree amongst themselves on what they are.

    That isn't pedantry, that's funny :)


  • #895
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    Cabaal wrote: »
    In fairness you make yourself look desperate as well and you should really learn when to accept that the catholic ethos thing clearly has failings when it comes to punishing children that have not been christianed.

    As opposed to punishing children who have been christened, which is what the writer would seem to prefer. Bottom line - build more schools where more schools are needed.


  • #896
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Are these people catholic?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Hook
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Skinner
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_O%27Brien
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jackson_(bishop)

    I'll give you a few clues.

    One is a unmarried father with a reputation for shagging anything in sight in his younger days. One is a confirmed agnostic who knows more about the catholic church than most of us on here talking about it. One is a RCC cardinal who's admitted that his sexual conduct had at times "fallen beneath the standards expected of him." And one is an Archbishop of the Church of Ireland, a church that claims to be catholic in nature and have direct apostolic succession.

    So, let the judges judge. Who's a catholic or who's just kidding themselves? Who has no right to call themselves catholic?

    ......or do any of us have a right to say that?


    Yeah, I'm still waiting to find out from the all-or-nuttin'ers if the Boston Bombings and 9/11 were acts of Islamic terrorism.


    Specifically if Jahar Tsarnaev, the drug-dealer & user was a Muslim and if the hard-drinking Mohammed Atta was a Muslim.


    Anyone...?


  • #897
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    robindch wrote: »
    You've already been corrected on this at least once -- people here are laughing at the catholics who can't agree amongst themselves on what they are.

    That isn't pedantry, that's funny :)

    We're a bundle of hypocrite sinners robindch. You're dead right. But mostly we're trying our best, so that's ok.

    Most catholics don't crave the sense of order and box-ticking that some people on here do.


  • #898
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,179 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    As opposed to punishing children who have been christened, which is what the writer would seem to prefer. Bottom line - build more schools where more schools are needed.
    How would the christened child be punished? If the parents register the child after the non-religious child was registered, why should it get to skip the queue for being the right religion?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #899
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Yeah, I'm still waiting to find out from the all-or-nuttin'ers if the Boston Bombings and 9/11 were acts of Islamic terrorism.


    Specifically if Jahar Tsarnaev, the drug-dealer & user was a Muslim and if the hard-drinking Mohammed Atta was a Muslim.


    Anyone...?

    They would both have to tick the agnostic box on the census Brown Bomber, I suppose. Those agnostic terrorists are a curse alright.


  • #900
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Most catholics don't crave the sense of order and box-ticking that some people on here do.
    Which people on here?

    If you're going to make an snide accusation about people you're discussing an issue with, then you should either be brave enough to name names, or withdraw it if you're not brave enough.


  • Advertisement
  • #901
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 16,153 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    As opposed to punishing children who have been christened, which is what the writer would seem to prefer. Bottom line - build more schools where more schools are needed.

    Rubbish, schools without a religious ethos do no prioritise in favour of children who have not being christened. To be fair to all, simply don't allow prioritisation of any child to any state funded school on religious grounds.

    Boards.ie need your help to survive, subscribe here



Advertisement