Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

I Heart Internet · 16-01-2014 05:30PM

Obliq wrote: »

And you still think that's ok? Says quite a lot about "christian" values that they need the good will of people not of their faith, or their religion would die a rapid death.

I'll meet you for a drink in 50 years and see how that rapid death has panned out in reality.

Brown Bomber · 16-01-2014 05:32PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

"The people surveyed were given a number of different positions re:god and asked which best described their beliefs. They had the choice of either an interventionist god or a general life force/spirit. Therefore choosing "I don't know" is a damn sight closer to not believing in god than it is to believing god. And that's besides the point I made about how the people who chose life spirit are also not catholics, given how the god of the catholic bible is so specifically interventionist."

You don't take "no" for an answer do you? Is that because you think it's interchangeable with "don't know"?

For the third time, I have no inclination in honestly discussing anything with someone who won't accept something any child off the street would know.

I Heart Internet · 16-01-2014 05:33PM

swampgas wrote: »

Living in a rural area, my options are RCC or RCC, and if I don't like it, seems to me you think I should just suck it up?

No. You can fight for/demand change. Just don't be surprised when people disagree with you when you tell them you'd like to change their catholic owned and run national school into the "Stephen Fry Academy".

swampgas · 16-01-2014 05:34PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You don't take "no" for an answer do you? Is that because you think it's interchangeable with "don't know"?

For the third time, I have no inclination in honestly discussing anything with someone who won't accept something any child off the street would know.

Eh, BB, I think you'll find that answering "I don't know" to "Is there a God?" isn't considered an acceptable answer per Catholic dogma. You're supposed to have faith, dammit!

But then again, apparently Catholic can mean anything you like, so what do I know?

Brown Bomber · 16-01-2014 05:37PM

King Mob wrote: »

Examples have been given on the thread.
Brown Bomber called the country a "christian one".

That is total rubbish. So that leaves with zero examples and zero evidence. Definite pattern developing here...

Obliq · 16-01-2014 05:38PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I'll meet you for a drink in 50 years and see how that rapid death has panned out in reality.

That rapid death would only occur if catholic parents were required to bring their children to church themselves to learn how to admit to "sins" to a man with no kids, cooped up in a small box. Oh, and all the lines they have to know for their confirmation, etc. that currently teachers have to take the children through to word perfect standards, to the detriment of the curriculum.

As swampgas mentions, "there is a massively lazy majority that simply don't care about fixing it, regardless of the impact on the significant minority of people who simply can't find a national school within driving distance that doesn't indoctrinate kids with what they may consider to be repulsive RCC nonsense."
Which is why the RCC is only dying a slow death and not the rapid one that would happen if parents had to work at faith formation in their children themselves. Ha ! I'd love to see that. Hopefully within the next 50 years alright.

swampgas · 16-01-2014 05:38PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

No. You can fight for/demand change. Just don't be surprised when people disagree with you when you tell them you'd like to change their catholic owned and run national school into the "Stephen Fry Academy".

Or may be the State could live up to its obligations to all citizens and find a compromise? Like maybe do religious stuff at the end of the day, then the non-religious kids can leave slightly early? It's almost like you're saying "screw you, fight me for equality if you want it". Surely a Catholic would be a bit more generous than that?

Sorry, I forgot that Catholics can be as mean-spirited and discriminatory as they like, it's all about the self-labeling.

Bannasidhe · 16-01-2014 05:41PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

No. You can fight for/demand change. Just don't be surprised when people disagree with you when you tell them you'd like to change their catholic owned and run national school into the "Stephen Fry Academy".

What exactly is that supposed to mean?

If all of our children could win scholarships to Cambridge like Stephen did that would be wonderful. Yet, I suspect that you are not using his name as he is an example of a well educated, erudite, man but for some other reason.

Care to tell us why you 'chose' Stephen Fry?

swampgas · 16-01-2014 05:41PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

No. You can fight for/demand change. Just don't be surprised when people disagree with you when you tell them you'd like to change their catholic owned and run national school into the "Stephen Fry Academy".

One other point: I'd like to see the RCC actually pay for it too.

Obliq · 16-01-2014 05:46PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What exactly is that supposed to mean?

If all of our children could win scholarships to Cambridge like Stephen did that would be wonderful. Yet, I suspect that you are not using his name as he is an example of a well educated, erudite, man but for some other reason.

Care to tell us why you 'chose' Stephen Fry?

Yes, was just about to ask too. As I skimmed over it the first time, I just read Stephen Fry and translated to middle-class, but then .....hmm.

@ Iheartinternet, I too, would like to know why Stephen Fry?

Brown Bomber · 16-01-2014 05:47PM

swampgas wrote: »

Eh, BB, I think you'll find that answering "I don't know" to "Is there a God?" isn't considered an acceptable answer per Catholic dogma. You're supposed to have faith, dammit!

But then again, apparently Catholic can mean anything you like, so what do I know?

Is the question do you believe in God always a Yes/No question? No answer required, we both know that it's not.

So picture the scene:

Intervewer: Do you believe in God?
Respondent: It's difficult to say. I don't know. Mark me down for don't know. I have doubts.
Interviewer. Uhm...it's a yes/no question....Let me ask my supervisor...yeah, sorry it has to be yes or no.
Respondent: Ah, ok, put me down for "No" then.

Interviewer: Ok, next question. Which of the following describes your opinion about God? 1. Don't believe in God. 2. Don't Know ... etc...
Respondent: I have doubts, so "Don't Know".

It's not forbidden to have doubt by the Catholic Church. There is no insta-removal penalty for doubt.

Quick question, is the Pope Catholic?

The Pope: “Even I had doubts on my journey of faith” - Vatican Insider

vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/udienza-29140/‎
Oct 30, 2013 - Everyone, even Francis, have felt lost or had doubts along their faith's journey. The Pope said this at today's General Audience in St. Peter's ...

I Heart Internet · 16-01-2014 05:48PM

Obliq wrote: »

Ha ! I'd love to see that. Hopefully within the next 50 years alright.

You'll have plenty of company amongst other sages who have predicted the demise of the chuch over the last 500 years.

Perhaps The thoughts of my old pal MacCauly would help to put things in context:

There is not, and there never was on this earth, a work of human policy so well deserving of examination as the Roman Catholic Church. The history of that Church joins together the two great ages of human civilisation. No other institution is left standing which carries the mind back to the times when the smoke of sacrifice rose from the Pantheon, and when camelopards and tigers bounded in the Flavian amphitheatre. The proudest royal houses are but of yesterday, when compared with the line of the Supreme Pontiffs. That line we trace back in an unbroken series, from the Pope who crowned Napoleon in the nineteenth century to the Pope who crowned Pepin in the eighth; and far beyond the time of Pepin the august dynasty extends, till it is lost in the twilight of fable. The republic of Venice came next in antiquity. But the republic of Venice was modern when compared with the Papacy; and the republic of Venice is gone, and the Papacy remains. The Papacy remains, not in decay, not a mere antique, but full of life and youthful vigour. The Catholic Church is still sending forth to the farthest ends of the world missionaries as zealous as those who landed in Kent with Augustin, and still confronting hostile kings with the same spirit with which she confronted Attila. The number of her children is greater than in any former age. Her acquisitions in the New World have more than compensated for what she has lost in the Old. Her spiritual ascendency extends over the vast countries which lie between the plains of the Missouri and Cape Horn, countries which a century hence, may not improbably contain a population as large as that which now inhabits Europe. The members of her communion are certainly not fewer than a hundred and fifty millions; and it will be difficult to show that all other Christian sects united amount to a hundred and twenty millions. Nor do we see any sign which indicates that the term of her long dominion is approaching. She saw the commencement of all the governments and of all the ecclesiastical establishments that now exist in the world; and we feel no assurance that she is not destined to see the end of them all. She was great and respected before the Saxon had set foot on Britain, before the Frank had passed the Rhine, when Grecian eloquence still flourished at Antioch, when idols were still worshipped in the temple of Mecca. And she may still exist in undiminished vigour when some traveller from New Zealand shall, in the midst of a vast solitude, take his stand on a broken arch of London Bridge to sketch the ruins of St. Paul’s.

I Heart Internet · 16-01-2014 05:50PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What exactly is that supposed to mean?

If all of our children could win scholarships to Cambridge like Stephen did that would be wonderful. Yet, I suspect that you are not using his name as he is an example of a well educated, erudite, man but for some other reason.

Care to tell us why you 'chose' Stephen Fry?

Because he's a prominent atheist. If I was going to choose a prominent atheist who would be a good role model in terms of education I'd choose someone like him. I previously (in this thread) used the "Ivana Bacik Academy".

Errr...why did you think I picked Stephen Fry?

I Heart Internet · 16-01-2014 05:52PM

Obliq wrote: »

Yes, was just about to ask too. As I skimmed over it the first time, I just read Stephen Fry and translated to middle-class, but then .....hmm.

@ Iheartinternet, I too, would like to know why Stephen Fry?

As above, he's a prominent atheist and decent role model if one is looking for a knowledgable guy. Although, as he says himself, he was terrible at school and got kicked out of one or two (I seem to recall from his autobiography.

Why did you think I selected him?

Obliq · 16-01-2014 05:55PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

You'll have plenty of company amongst other sages who have predicted the demise of the chuch over the last 500 years.

Perhaps The thoughts of my old pal MacCauly would help to put things in context:

Y'know what? Your context stinks. My context is my children's education, and how the practice of discrimination by the RCC run STATE funded schools in this country has impacted upon their education. I find it condescending and ignorant in the extreme that you think this quote provides me a better context on this topic than the one I already have.

All done here :mad:

I Heart Internet · 16-01-2014 05:57PM

swampgas wrote: »

One other point: I'd like to see the RCC actually pay for it too.

Why? Why should people who want a catholic education for their children have to pay for it, while other's don't. That's not what the constitution says.

I Heart Internet · 16-01-2014 06:00PM

Obliq wrote: »

Y'know what? Your context stinks. My context is my children's education, and how the practice of discrimination by the RCC run STATE funded schools in this country has impacted upon their education. I find it condescending and ignorant in the extreme that you think this quote provides me a better context on this topic than the one I already have.

All done here :mad:

The quote was intended, as I suspect you well know, to put into context your thoughts on the demise of the catholic church. Specifically:

Ha ! I'd love to see that. Hopefully within the next 50 years alright.

But you know that.

You might answer my query about Stephen Fry before you go.....you've peaked my interest now.

catallus · 16-01-2014 06:00PM

Obliq wrote: »

Y'know what? Your context stinks. [...]

All done here :mad:

Maybe the ignorance and condescension of demanding that your own faddish opinions on how your kids should be educated should take precedence over the opinions of those who have to actually put work and thought into it are much more odious.

Corkfeen · 16-01-2014 06:07PM

catallus wrote: »

Maybe the ignorance and condescension of demanding that your own faddish opinions on how your kids should be educated should take precedence over the opinions of those who have to actually put work and thought into it are much more odious.

The majority of schools in a country not endowing a specific religion isn't exactly a fad, been happening in most of the western world for decades.The fad of children being educated equally and not being discriminated against . :O

Cabaal · 16-01-2014 06:08PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Why? Why should people who want a catholic education for their children have to pay for it, while other's don't. That's not what the constitution says.

By that logic all churches should be state funded,

after all if you want a Catholic mass why should you have to pay extra for it and those that don't believe in a sky fairy don't.

Nobody's stopping any Catholic education, that's what the Bible, Sunday school and mass are for. The parents also agree to raise the kid in the faith, they don't agree that the state will do it for them.

Bannasidhe · 16-01-2014 06:09PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Because he's a prominent atheist. If I was going to choose a prominent atheist who would be a good role model in terms of education I'd choose someone like him. I previously (in this thread) used the "Ivana Bacik Academy".

Errr...why did you think I picked Stephen Fry?

Seems strange to use an Englishman no?

Why not Ray Darcy?

You can have the Bannasidhe Academy if you wish. It will be exactly like the school I attended but receive State funding.

Oh - and we will play rugby... and cricket...and kabaddi. I love Kabaddi.

Obliq · 16-01-2014 06:15PM

catallus wrote: »

Maybe the ignorance and condescension of demanding that your own faddish opinions on how your kids should be educated should take precedence over the opinions of those who have to actually put work and thought into it are much more odious.

What an interesting way of looking at the constitution. You've really outdone yourself with the rudeness this time petal. Not quite enough to report, but plenty to get backs up. Well done you :pac:
Oh, and while we're at it.....did you REALLY just suggest that my opinions on how my kids are educated have had LESS work and thought put in than the opinions of others?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Oh - and we will play rugby... and cricket...and kabaddi. I love Kabaddi.

Oooh! Sounds good. What's kabaddi?!

Bannasidhe · 16-01-2014 06:19PM

Obliq wrote: »

What an interesting way of looking at the constitution. You've really outdone yourself with the rudeness this time petal. Not quite enough to report, but plenty to get backs up. Well done you :pac:

Oooh! Sounds good. What's kabaddi?!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabaddi

It's great.

Obliq · 16-01-2014 06:29PM

Obliq wrote: »

Yes, was just about to ask too. As I skimmed over it the first time, I just read Stephen Fry and translated to middle-class, but then .....hmm.

@ Iheartinternet, I too, would like to know why Stephen Fry?

I Heart Internet wrote: »

As above, he's a prominent atheist and decent role model if one is looking for a knowledgable guy. Although, as he says himself, he was terrible at school and got kicked out of one or two (I seem to recall from his autobiography.

Why did you think I selected him?

I answered that before asking you. My interest was piqued by noticing, as did Bann, that you referenced a middle class Englishman in connection with Irish primary school models.

Oh, and don't put words in my mouth with the "but you knew that" carry on. As regards the context of your quote, I saw it as blatant fobbing off my very valid argument about the prospects of the RCC if parents had to actually put the work into faith formation.

I Heart Internet · 16-01-2014 06:33PM

Cabaal wrote: »

The parents also agree to raise the kid in the faith, they don't agree that the state will do it for them.

They don't expect the state to do it for them. They do expect (and have the constitutional right) for the state to facilitate them in doing so.

I Heart Internet · 16-01-2014 06:37PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Seems strange to use an Englishman no?

No. Lots of Irish schools are named after foreign people (saints). No biggie. Internationalise things.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Why not Ray Darcy?

I'm not a fan of Ray. I'm a fan of Stephen Fry.

I was worried there that you thought I selected Stephen because he happend to be gay. I was worried that you saw "Stephen Fry" and the first thing that jumped into your head was not "great guy, good name for a school" but "he's gay".

I was worrying over nothing obviously.

Delirium · 16-01-2014 06:37PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

They don't expect the state to do it for them. They do expect (and have the constitutional right) for the state to facilitate them in doing so.

They do expect the state to do it since they're staffing public schools with teachers that the state pays, not the patron.

I Heart Internet · 16-01-2014 06:40PM

SW wrote: »

They do expect the state to do it since they're staffing public schools with teachers that the state pays, not the patron.

The state pays the wages of all teachers in the country (even fee paying schools afaik) - perfectly level playing field.

Piliger · 16-01-2014 06:47PM

alaimacerc wrote: »

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.

You really are very naive.

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

You really do have problems with people that disagree with you don't you. Try improving your argument and the quality of the so-called evidence that you use to support it. Then that chip on your shoulder might ease off.

can I suggest you find your own estimates as to the prevalence of lack-of-belief, and we can discuss those?

The census is the most accurate statement of fact available. Everything else is just conjecture, hearsay and speculation.

Because just yelling at everyone

The only one yeling and stamping his feet is you.

.. isn't really proving especially productive (surprisingly).

It does it for me.

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.

Just more arrogant and pompous behaviour, making claims about other people's 'real' belief despite what those people say. Boring.

I Heart Internet · 16-01-2014 06:48PM

Obliq wrote: »

Oh, and don't put words in my mouth with the "but you knew that" carry on.

That's not putting words in your mouth.

Obliq wrote: »

As regards the context of your quote, I saw it as blatant fobbing off my very valid argument about the prospects of the RCC if parents had to actually put the work into faith formation.

I'm sorry if you took offence, but I was very clear to link the post directly to your hand-rubbing at the prospect of the catholic church being gone in 50 years. I thought it was quite clear.

Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

Comments