Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

Piliger · 16-01-2014 06:51PM

King Mob wrote: »

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.

It makes complete sense. Liars lie.

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.

In your opinion. Your inability to see the truth is your issue not mine.

So I'm asking you to provide a good reason for why you think they would make this figure up.

Because they lie.

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?

No. I never said that. But I don't believe the RCC survey or any RCC survey. The census is the best place to start as it is the only direct evidence of what people identify with. After that it is speculation. I am happy to speculate and have done repeatedly, but not on the basis of some pompous people telling people what they really believe and what religion they really are.

Delirium · 16-01-2014 06:51PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

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

No it's not as >95% are under the patronage of the RCC. So the state is paying the wages of teachers to raise the children of Catholics in the Catholic faith.

Where I grew up has one school, so only Catholics are catered for. Protestant neighbours had to go to a school 10km away.

Piliger · 16-01-2014 06:55PM

alaimacerc wrote: »

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.

A convenient side stepping of the obvious relevance and overwhelming destruction of your silly arguments.

Piliger · 16-01-2014 06:58PM

alaimacerc wrote: »

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.

I'll say.

Hilarious. You keep banging on the same drum despite it being blown apart repeatedly. You refuse to grasp the meaning of religion, and the RCC in particular and think that if you say it isn't so enough times, then you will win the argument. No. You lost. Your opinion is a nonsense.

Piliger · 16-01-2014 06:59PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Anyone who feels the need to correct people when they describe what religion they are on a census. That's who I'm refering to. I'm not going to trawl the last 900 posts to pick them out - it seems to be a overarching themes of this thread.

In real-life it would go:

"So what religion are you."
"Ah, I'm Roman Catholic, for better or for worse, like."
"Ah c'mere, you're not one of those. I saw you playing golf Sunday morning while your wife was at Mass."
"Heh!! It was a charity, event. I'm at Mass most weekends, I even help out with the newsletter."
"NO! You're not a Catholic!! Why are you kidding yourself? You've failed. You're not a catholic!!!"

That sums it up. It's a kind of arrogant pompous thought police attitude.

Piliger · 16-01-2014 07:00PM

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?

Clearly not a lot.

Piliger · 16-01-2014 07:02PM

Obliq wrote: »

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.

I am afraid that is deeply naive. There is nothing like removing something from people to make them want it 10 times more than they ever did.

Obliq · 16-01-2014 07:03PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

That's not putting words in your mouth.

You were assuming my thoughts then. No better

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.

Generally, one is sorry to have caused offence. Yes, I got that your quote was linked to my hope that the church assumes the position in society that it deserves (ie. more in accord with the *ahem* "faith" of it's followers, if they were put to the test by having to educate their children into their faith themselves).

My hopefulness made a point. Your quote did not. It's use was quite clearly designed to pompously override the context of discrimination in the RCC run, STATE FUNDED national schools.

Piliger · 16-01-2014 07:06PM

swampgas wrote: »

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

We should have a standard nationwide school system with NO religious content, except for only one class every now and then teaching 'the basic facts' about all religions.

Individual religious groups should then be left to organise their own religion indoctrination classes in their own time, perhaps in the style of Sunday School that the protestants used to do. Let them pay for it themselves or do it at home.

Then we can move to the next step of making indoctrination of children under 18 an offense. They will then be free to start their classes once those children reach 18. And I'll be happy to wish them luck !

Obliq · 16-01-2014 07:11PM

Piliger wrote: »

I am afraid that is deeply naive. There is nothing like removing something from people to make them want it 10 times more than they ever did.

Ya think?! *coughs*. I would be extremely interested to see how many of my fellow parents of kids in my local NS would actually follow through with all the rigours required to get children remembering their lines, repeating stuff the parents forgot years ago, and forcing their 12 yr olds to Sunday school to listen to Fr. whatever waffling on about inclusiveness (while they repeatedly check their iphones for a signal).

THAT'S what I mean by saying I'd love to see it. I'd love to see cultural catholics having to do the do towards their own "faith", and the subsequent hand wringing about how the church's attendance has haemorrhaged. Surprise!! Looking forward to it is not a crime

Corkfeen · 16-01-2014 07:21PM

Piliger wrote: »

We should have a standard nationwide school system with NO religious content, except for only one class every now and then teaching 'the basic facts' about all religions.

Individual religious groups should then be left to organise their own religion indoctrination classes in their own time, perhaps in the style of Sunday School that the protestants used to do. Let them pay for it themselves or do it at home.

Then we can move to the next step of making indoctrination of children under 18 an offense. They will then be free to start their classes once those children reach 18. And I'll be happy to wish them luck !

What exactly is so shocking about parents being responsible for religious indoctrination rather than the education system?

Mark Hamill · 16-01-2014 07:23PM

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.

What the hell are you talking about? Only the Bishops conference survey was organised in relation to the RCC (and it was run by a third party) the rest of the studies I linked to in my posts are from various independent sources like MRBI and Red C over the course of the last 10-15 years. Even besides that, if the RCC has fiddled with their survey results (something which you seem to think they have done), they would only do so in their favour.

The way you mindlessly leap on anything to defect or ignore what people are saying is painful to watch.

Mark Hamill · 16-01-2014 07:41PM

Note to self: Before responding to a post, check that the thread hasn't moved on for 6 pages first

Piliger · 16-01-2014 07:44PM

Corkfeen wrote: »

What exactly is so shocking about parents being responsible for religious indoctrination rather than the education system?

Huh ? Isn't that what I said ?

Piliger · 16-01-2014 07:45PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Note to self: Before responding to a post, check that the thread hasn't moved on for 6 pages first

What do people here do all day ?

Mark Hamill · 16-01-2014 07:54PM

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.

Do you approach all threads on this site according to the five rules of dodgeball?

"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."

robindch · 16-01-2014 08:01PM

Corkfeen wrote: »

[...] parents being responsible for religious indoctrination rather than the education system?

Would people be happy to kill lambs themselves if there were neither slaughter houses nor butchers?

Mark Hamill · 16-01-2014 08:08PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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

Except it is a yes/no question. Doubt doesn't come into belief, doubt comes into gnosticism/agnosticism. Even besides that, you are saying that at any given time, ~ 10% of "catholics" will be unsure enough of their belief in god to answer "no" to a simple question?

And again, this is besides the 42.4% of "catholics" (100% - 57.6% who believe in a personal god) who do not believe in the god as described in catholic doctrine.

Mark Hamill · 16-01-2014 08:12PM

Here's a question for BB, Piliger and I Heart Internet (and anyone else on that side of the discussion):

If we accept that people should be allowed call themselves "catholic" in the census simply because they want the label, completely regardless of what they actually believe and do, should we expect the same of all the questions on the census? Should we treat all declarations of age, nationality, occupation etc. as being what people like or want to identify as, rather than what actually describes their situation?
What use would the census be in that case?
What use is any question that is likely to be answered so?

Bannasidhe · 16-01-2014 08:33PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

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

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.

Actually, I thought 'Stephen...you want to name an Irish Primary School after Stephen???? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA OH, he would be amused.*

Then I thought - 'Haven't we enough schools named after a big Mary???'

*Very small gay community in Hackney in the 1980s but it did contain Mr Fry and myself hence the air of familiarity

swampgas · 16-01-2014 08:42PM

Piliger wrote: »

Clearly not a lot.

Haha, guess I set myself up for that one.

Nevertheless, I can't see how someone who can't even figure out if God actually exists or not can even be called a Christian - after all, they can't even figure out if God exists, so how can they be sure that he's the Christian God - maybe it's Thor, or Yahweh, or Allah that is real?

There was a long stretch in my teens when I was unsure of whether God existed or not. My thinking went like this: maybe God is just some life force, or something like that, or maybe God simply doesn't exist, in which case all organised religions are just simply wrong. Or maybe the traditional Abrahamic God did exist, but then how was I supposed to figure out which religion was actually the closest match to what God really was?

What I'm trying to say here is that first you need to figure out whether you think God exists or not, and what attributes this God has, then you can start figuring out which specific religion (if any) matches this belief.

Otherwise it's a bit like asking me whether I'm a Catholic atheist or a Protestant atheist - the question itself is faulty.

swampgas · 16-01-2014 08:47PM

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.

The constitution says the state should not "endow any religion", yet the state effectively does just this. Apparently it's the state's job to pay for education, while the Church's job is to dictate the curriculum. That's quite a sweet deal for the RCC right there.

Too bad if you're an Irish citizen who doesn't fit the RCC mould, in which case you can sod off apparently.

swampgas · 16-01-2014 08:54PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So picture the scene:

Interviewer: 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".

Imagine the interview as follows:

Interviewer: Do you believe in God?
Respondent: I don't know.
Interviewer: And what religion are you?
Respondent: Catholic of course!

Not very logical is it?

Piliger · 16-01-2014 08:57PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Here's a question for BB, Piliger and I Heart Internet (and anyone else on that side of the discussion):

If we accept that people should be allowed call themselves "catholic" in the census simply because they want the label, completely regardless of what they actually believe and do, should we expect the same of all the questions on the census? Should we treat all declarations of age, nationality, occupation etc. as being what people like or want to identify as, rather than what actually describes their situation?
What use would the census be in that case?
What use is any question that is likely to be answered so?

To those on the dumb side of the discussion - this is typical of your dumb questions.

Piliger · 16-01-2014 09:00PM

swampgas wrote: »

Haha, guess I set myself up for that one.

Nevertheless, I can't see how someone who can't even figure out if God actually exists or not can even be called a Christian - after all, they can't even figure out if God exists, so how can they be sure that he's the Christian God - maybe it's Thor, or Yahweh, or Allah that is real?

There was a long stretch in my teens when I was unsure of whether God existed or not. My thinking went like this: maybe God is just some life force, or something like that, or maybe God simply doesn't exist, in which case all organised religions are just simply wrong. Or maybe the traditional Abrahamic God did exist, but then how was I supposed to figure out which religion was actually the closest match to what God really was?

What I'm trying to say here is that first you need to figure out whether you think God exists or not, and what attributes this God has, then you can start figuring out which specific religion (if any) matches this belief.

Otherwise it's a bit like asking me whether I'm a Catholic atheist or a Protestant atheist - the question itself is faulty.

No offence, but I regret to have to say that you and some others hereabouts suffer from what I and many others in the world find one of the most abhorrent characteristics in human beings - certainty. It is certainty that brings us oppression, intolerance and extremism.

Piliger · 16-01-2014 09:01PM

swampgas wrote: »

Imagine the interview as follows:

Interviewer: Do you believe in God?
Respondent: I don't know.
Interviewer: And what religion are you?
Respondent: Catholic of course!

Not very logical is it?

So ... it is just now dawning on you that logic is NOT something to expect from religious people ?

robindch · 16-01-2014 09:02PM

Piliger wrote: »

To those on the dumb side of the discussion - this is typical of your dumb questions.

Actually, it's quite an interesting question.

Even more interesting still is to see you avoid answering it without even the pretense of civility. If that lack continues, I'll be reaching for my cardpack and my banstick.

Brown Bomber · 16-01-2014 10:01PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Here's a question for BB, Piliger and I Heart Internet (and anyone else on that side of the discussion):

If we accept that people should be allowed call themselves "catholic" in the census simply because they want the label, completely regardless of what they actually believe and do, should we expect the same of all the questions on the census? Should we treat all declarations of age, nationality, occupation etc. as being what people like or want to identify as, rather than what actually describes their situation?
What use would the census be in that case?
What use is any question that is likely to be answered so?

Who said anything about anyone "wanting a label"? Give a verifiable reference of a single case of this happening!

What I have been saying ad infinitum is that people have the right to consider themselves the religion of their choice if their BELIEFS are broadly in line (to the best of their knowledge) with the Church they have affiliated themselves with.

What I have also been saying ad infinitum is that while the census is imperfect it surveys the entire population and therefore it is the best available count that we have. It doesn't matter if all 3,000 "atheists" in Ireland chip in with anecdotal and unverifiable stuff and refuse to accept it.

If all we need is a survey of 1,000 people to "debunk" it then why not just do a survey a 1,000 people instead and save millions?

Personally I couldn't care less what the religious affiliation is, I think everyone should be given equal treatment regardless. What bothered me most of all about the census is that it was contracted to CACI; Abu Ghraib contractors.

What also bothers me as a secularist is that "atheists" aren't embracing the fact that Catholics aren't as brainwashed on social issues as they thought, that Catholics are more sceptical and less dogmatic than they thought, that there is now a more progressive Pope. Instead they fight it.

It's almost like they need this conservative caricature of the Christian to justify their hatred. They need this cardboard cutout to feed their superiority complex when the reality turns out that the "enemy" is perhaps not so different from them after all.

Brown Bomber · 16-01-2014 10:04PM

swampgas wrote: »

Imagine the interview as follows:

Interviewer: Do you believe in God?
Respondent: I don't know.
Interviewer: And what religion are you?
Respondent: Catholic of course!

Not very logical is it?

The first question in that survey would be "What is your religion".

Bannasidhe · 16-01-2014 10:08PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Who said anything about anyone "wanting a label"? Give a verifiable reference of a single case of this happening!

What I have been saying ad infinitum is that people have the right to consider themselves the religion of their choice if their BELIEFS are broadly in line (to the best of their knowledge) with the Church they have affiliated themselves with.

What I have also been saying ad infinitum is that while the census is imperfect it surveys the entire population and therefore it is the best available count that we have. It doesn't matter if all 3,000 "atheists" in Ireland chip in with anecdotal and unverifiable stuff and refuse to accept it.

If all we need is a survey of 1,000 people to "debunk" it then why not just do a survey a 1,000 people instead and save millions?

Personally I couldn't care less what the religious affiliation is, I think everyone should be given equal treatment regardless. What bothered me most of all about the census is that it was contracted to CACI; Abu Ghraib contractors.

What also bothers me as a secularist is that "atheists" aren't embracing the fact that Catholics aren't as brainwashed on social issues as they thought, that Catholics are more sceptical and less dogmatic than they thought, that there is now a more progressive Pope. Instead they fight it.

It's almost like they need this conservative caricature of the Christian to justify their hatred. They need this cardboard cutout to feed their superiority complex when the reality turns out that the "enemy" is perhaps not so different from them after all.

Ahhh...you were doing so well and then you had to spoil it all by saying something stoopid like* feed their superiority complex

*lyrics from a popular song in case you were wondering....much more popular than Power Rangers....

Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

Comments