nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

Brown Bomber

Cabaal wrote: »

Its scary that this guy actually believes what he is saying is factual

What exactly is he saying that is "scaring you"?

"In my/our DNA" is a figure of speech.

Aren't Labour making moves against the church in schools and hospitals, Councillors and Chaplains for example? Isn't Labour's Ivana Bacik the darling of Atheist Ireland? In any case Gilmore is a disgraced liar motivated by self-interest.

Gilmore, who has led calls against a second referendum, has told the Embassy separately that he fully expects, and would support, holding a second referendum in 2009. He explained his public posture of opposition to a second referendum as "politically necessary" for the time being.
http://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08DUBLIN433_a.html

What else? Oh yeah, according to our own census we are as a nation over 90% Christian.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

alaimacerc

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Then you also accept the authority of the religions to decide who is and isn't a member, assuming the member wants in.

Why are we assuming that? It certainly appears that the religions aren't. It's also not inconceivable (though admittedly far less likely) that we could have the reverse situation, of someone "affiliating" themselves with a religion that doesn't accept their "membership".

Personally, I don't accept the "authority" of any religion to do diddly. The meaning of concepts like "Muslim", "Catholic", "Protestant" (even more so, "Christian") are up for public debate, and aren't simply wholly owned by either the individual "identifyee", the denomination in question, or any poorly-defined combination of the two.

alaimacerc

King Mob wrote: »

How about someone who rejects the Quran as a whole, are they Muslim if they claim they are?

I don't want to follow BB too far down this digressionary tale, and i think cross-religious comparisons are inherently difficult and problematic, but my stab at the approximate equivalent of the Nicene Creed would be the shahada. "There is no god but God, Muhammad is the messenger of God," and assorted elaborations thereof.

Mark Hamill

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Don't hold back now. Your rant has my attention though. For clarity, you are in the Mark Hamill camp

It's always nice to know that people are talking about you, BB, but it would be nice if they talked to you, every once in a while too.

alaimacerc

King Mob wrote: »

Kinda hypocritical for you to badger people about not answering questions when you ignored one.

Ignored one? That's a very conservative estimate indeed. BB is the epitome of self-exceptionalist cherry-picking as to which questions must be addressed. (And it has very little to do with which of them are on-topic.)

alaimacerc

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I said that the formal RCC line on homosexuality doesn't float many people's boats in Ireland but that most people were content to let that slide.

The "formal line"? That homosexual acts are matters of grave sin, a homosexual orientation is "objectively disordered", and that sovereign states may not legislate to give effect to equal rights to gay people? As opposed to what "informal line"? What's your basis for concluding that this is an "optional extra" of Catholic doctrine? Do you think that the hierarchy have shown equal enthusiasm for letting slide their flock's "letting that slide"?

AerynSun

alaimacerc wrote: »

Kafkaesque. A thousand posts arguing in detail why we can't, and we're back to the same old broken record.

Shall we dance? Because:

A first sign of the beginning of understanding is the wish to die. - Franz Kafka

:pac: :rolleyes:

alaimacerc

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Don't hold back now. Your rant has my attention though. For clarity, you are in the Mark Hamill camp [...] as opposed to the King Mob Camp. [...] Is this correct?

I've repeatedly said that some sort of belief is the crux, as far as I'm concerned. Given that what we're talking about is a religion that itself identifies belief as such. This should hardly be news to you, given the amount of time you've spent unconvincingly trying to rubbish surveys on religious belief. If someone is utterly absent of belief but still observes some of the outward forms, it's more trouble that it's worth to exclude them, either, though (before we get more stuff about "respecting the hypothetical religious rights of those with no religious belief").

Or I may be correct and your emotional attachment to the issue is clouding your judgement, that you are incredulous that there are only 3,000 or so registered atheists in Ireland despite the best efforts of the atheist bus, or was that the UK? Anyway, you say the claims stand up to scrutiny. Let's see. Start with the one you interjected on, the above.

"Registered atheists"? What the heck does that even mean? Are you envisaging a model where one needs a permit to not believe in god, as if one were a dog, television, or a gay person or Jehovah's Witness in 1930s Germany? Atheism merely requires not believing in god. You don't have to join anything, tithe anything, pay (a)parish (un)dues, believe anything else, do (or refrain from doing) anything, and certainly not to register anywhere.

There's ample evidence of more than 3000 actual atheists in Ireland. Indeed, there's ample evidence of far more than 3000 actual atheists that are counted as Catholics on the census returns.

Ideally, you will use plain language as I've actually stopped reading what you write as it appears to me, to quote Orwell, used "to give the appearance of solidity to pure wind".

You should blush to mention Orwell's name (de plume), given the complete absence of any actual argument being advanced here (or indeed, elsewhere much else). "TL;DR" is not a valid debating point. Or indeed, a sign of anything else beyond arguing in outright bad faith.

Brown Bomber

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Shouldn't this mean the thread should be closed, as we've finally discovered the answer as posed in the thread title:

Definitive answers don't usually tend to start with "We are not exactly sure..."

alaimacerc

I Heart Internet wrote: »

As I've said time and time again on this thread, I may think someone "isn't a real catholic" but I have ZERO say or influence over how they perceive themselves and their beliefs.

I'm sure you're being a little unkind to yourself. Surely we can rather say "infinitesimally low"?

People's affiliation doesn't exist in a vacuum. Or "identification", or "meta-belief" (I believe I'm a Catholic, though I don't believe in or do any of the things that religion says I should believe or do). It's sustained and indeed encouraged by other's tacit acceptance or even encouragement of such positions.

Brown Bomber

alaimacerc wrote: »

Your "scrutiny" consists of the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and repeatedly yelling "These other sources of data can't possibly be as good as the census, because they're not the census. Therefore, we must take the census at face value, and indeed, beyond face value." Add large doses of synthetic offence at some fairly straightforward paraphrases of various things you've said, some rather basic misunderstanding of basic statistics, and huge amounts of deflection onto matters of tangential or zero relevance: that largely covers your contribution to this thread.

Don't hold back now. Your rant has my attention though. For clarity, you are in the Mark Hamill camp

given how the majority of said people don't go to weekly mass ... this means that their self-identification is not accurate.

as opposed to the King Mob Camp.

Part of being a Catholic includes having to go to mass every week.
If a person believes this, but fails to do so, it's simply them sinning.
However if a person believes that they do not need to go to mass at all (or simply don't know that they are supposed to), then their beliefs fall out of alignment with Catholicism.

Is this correct?

alaimacerc wrote: »

Guffaw. These silly irrational non-believers, eh, as opposed to the steely-logic of the sky-fairy defenders. You may be sincerely mistaking heated reaction to some of the deeply complacent arguments defending the status quo of religious privilege as "emotionalist activism". Or you may of course simply be misrepresenting it, lacking any actual effective counterargument to any of the material issues.

Or I may be correct and your emotional attachment to the issue is clouding your judgement, that you are incredulous that there are only 3,000 or so registered atheists in Ireland despite the best efforts of the atheist bus, or was that the UK? Anyway, you say the claims stand up to scrutiny. Let's see. Start with the one you interjected on, the above.

Ideally, you will use plain language as I've actually stopped reading what you write as it appears to me, to quote Orwell, used "to give the appearance of solidity to pure wind".

alaimacerc

I Heart Internet wrote: »

For such a meddlesome, discriminatory church, we take pretty much everyone.

"Taking everything" and "meddlesome" synergize rather nicely, don't you think? The logical extreme is what someone in one of these debates once claimed, that everyone on the entire planet owes the pope obedience.

As to "discriminatory"... Sure, there's no real "discrimination" as to membership. As to who is (or may be) denied communion, who can hold any post of authority in the church according to gender (and other such matters of equal status), get their kids into the church-coopted school, have their rights respected in civil legislation the church demands... well, how much more discriminatory could one want?

Brian Shanahan

robindch wrote: »

As I Heart Internet has confirmed, the term appears to be completely meaningless, at least to people who self-identify as "catholic" and no doubt "muslim" etc too.

Shouldn't this mean the thread should be closed, as we've finally discovered the answer as posed in the thread title:

We're not exactly sure, as a lot of people are "cultural" catholics^, but there is no exact tally of how many people belong in that category. However given the various studies and surveys carried out by intereste parties (most of whom were interested in keeping catholic numbers high) we can be reasonably confident that the maximal number is c 65% with a good possibility that it is substantially lower.

^The whole "cultural [religion X]" was started by irreligious people of Judaic extraction who wanted to show their Jewishness without agreeing with the religious aspects of said Jewishness.

alaimacerc

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Defrocked priests are still catholics.

Defrocked priests are still priests, what's more (and worse). Speaking magically/"in the eyes of eternity".

alaimacerc

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I'm a great believer in the fact that people choose to believe (or more likely continue to believe) in a particular religion because it simple makes them happier in life.

The people who meaningfully "believe in a religion" aren't really the people at issue, now, are they/

alaimacerc

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Again it comes back to the "all-or-nothing" point of view. The RCC does not cast people aside because they can't believe in 100% or everything 100% of the time.

But you're quite happy to count the "nothing" people as well, given your apparent contentment to continue to count Catholic Atheists as part of the demographic astroturfing of what the president should be saying on TV, the education and health departments handing over vast amounts of cash to religious organisations, etc. (Albeit no-one seems to have quite managed to actually acknowledge the evidence on the prevalence of such people.)

alaimacerc

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Au contraire! We can also conclude that 90% of Irish people say that they are christian.

Kafkaesque. A thousand posts arguing in detail why we can't, and we're back to the same old broken record.

alaimacerc

I Heart Internet wrote: »

As long as everyone has the right to pick their own religion on a census form and not having to listen to people tell them they ticked the wrong box, I don't care what the RCC does.

A fanciful construction of the "rights" involved. Meaningless box-ticking isn't a right, religious or otherwise. Free speech most certainly is. Your objective seems to the to shut down the actual latter in favour of the imagined former.

As I've said before (to little avail when people won't engage with what's actually been said, when it might interfere with their ability to continue trotting out the same old "talking points" as if they hadn't already been dealt with), it's pretty clear that the people whose boxticks are the "softest" are, uncoincidentally enough, also the people least likely of all to see this as a matter of "exercise of religious rights". Which in any case, it isn't.

alaimacerc

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Exactly. Like I said wayyyyyyy back, if we unpack any of these sources they don't stand up to scrutiny.

Your "scrutiny" consists of the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and repeatedly yelling "These other sources of data can't possibly be as good as the census, because they're not the census. Therefore, we must take the census at face value, and indeed, beyond face value." Add large doses of synthetic offence at some fairly straightforward paraphrases of various things you've said, some rather basic misunderstanding of basic statistics, and huge amounts of deflection onto matters of tangential or zero relevance: that largely covers your contribution to this thread.

I truly believe that atheist activists would realise this if they could somehow detach themselves emotionally from issues of religion.

Guffaw. These silly irrational non-believers, eh, as opposed to the steely-logic of the sky-fairy defenders. You may be sincerely mistaking heated reaction to some of the deeply complacent arguments defending the status quo of religious privilege as "emotionalist activism". Or you may of course simply be misrepresenting it, lacking any actual effective counterargument to any of the material issues.

alaimacerc

gaynorvader wrote: »

I guess the question is "90% of people identify as Catholc, but how many are actually practising Catholics?".

Well. Christian, rather than Catholic. But even "believing", much less "practicising".

Nodin

I Heart Internet wrote: »

As long as everyone has the right to pick their own religion on a census form and not having to listen to people tell them they ticked the wrong box, I don't care what the RCC does.

...which is the problem. ' I'll vote for x. No, I don't care what they do with the influence.'

robindch

I Heart Internet wrote: »

[...] I don't care what the RCC does.

So you don't care that people self-describe using a meaningless term and you don't mind that this silliness is abused by people in power to sustain their political influence.

I can't say it's a very honest or a very clever position to take -- supporting the abuse of political power -- but at least I understand it now. Thanks for clarifying.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

No it doesn't.

Exactly. Like I said wayyyyyyy back, if we unpack any of these sources they don't stand up to scrutiny. They may provide some questions but they certainly don't provide any answers. I truly believe that atheist activists would realise this if they could somehow detach themselves emotionally from issues of religion.

King Mob wrote: »

But that's a dishonest representation of what Mark was saying.

What absolute rubbish. It is perfectly accurate. I'll show again with added emphasis this time.

Officially, the census may tell us that ~84% of irish people self-identify as catholic, but given how the majority of said people don't go to weekly mass (one of the central requirements of catholics, according to the catechism of the RCC, see sections 2180 and 2181 here), this means that their self-identification is not accurate.

Now that that is settled perhaps you could apologise for falsely accusing me of being dishonest?

King Mob wrote: »

Do you think that the census gives an accurate number of people to actually adhere to the defining beliefs of Catholicism?

I've said repeatedly that the census is flawed, but is by far the best indicator of religious affiliation in Ireland.

If you disagree. Post your better source of information.

King Mob wrote: »

Nope, it's very relevant to the discussion.

Kinda hypocritical for you to badger people about not answering questions when you ignored one.

So if someone specifically rejects the lineage and ahaditha accepted by Shia Muslims, would they be correct in calling themselves Shiites? How about vice versa?
How about someone who rejects the Quran as a whole, are they Muslim if they claim they are?

Hmmmm...... This is again something that I've said many times. It's not simply a case of believe and do whatever you want and maintain the right to call yourself whatever you want.

The society is governed by elders. The elders make the rules and enforce the penalties. The individual opts-in to this society with this understanding. The society may refuse membership or exclude the individual from membership as a "penalty". For example, if you signed up as a member of the George Michael fanclub you are entitled to call yourself a member as long as you want until you get excluded for not paying your annual fee, for example.

The other side of that is fundamentalists on both sides, religious and anti-religious screaming "Infidel!" and "Apostate" for not being blindly obedient or accepting unconditionally and without any doubt the doctrines.

Cabaal

gaynorvader wrote: »

I guess the question is "90% of people identify as Catholc, but how many are actually practising Catholics?".

Given mass is a extremely important part of being a "practicing" catholic, 30% (2011 numbers) would seem to be the actual number.

When the mass numbers were checked in 1984 the amount going to mass was 87%. During the early 70's they were 91%.

gaynorvader

I Heart Internet wrote: »

As long as everyone has the right to pick their own religion on a census form and not having to listen to people tell them they ticked the wrong box, I don't care what the RCC does.

I guess the question is "90% of people identify as Catholc, but how many are actually practising Catholics?".

[Deleted User]

I Heart Internet wrote: »

How did you get that from me saying:

No. The names aren't interchangable because there are real differences (as outlined) between the RCC and Protestant churches but there is a huge variety in waht real people actually believe.

I didn't ask for differences between the churches, as you keep saying that they aren't relevant.

I asked you to explain the differences between a catholic and a protestant.
If you can't point to some, then the name is interchangeable.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

H
That 90% of people believe they are christians, in particular, are members of christian churches.

Au contraire! We can also conclude that 90% of Irish people say that they are christian.

Well no, we can't. 100% of the population did not fill out the form, only the "head of the household" did.
First we need to exclude all children because they cannot really self identify as anything. Then we have the instances of people being labelled as one thing when they do not actually self identify as such.

So the only solid number we actually have is the number of boxes ticked.

But let us pretend the figure is actually 90% of people self identify as Christian. What useful information can we get from this if the term christian can mean anything?

I Heart Internet

robindch wrote: »

So, given that you accept the term is utterly meaningless, are you happy with the church claiming that they have the support of people who don't have to agree with anything the church stands for?

As long as everyone has the right to pick their own religion on a census form and not having to listen to people tell them they ticked the wrong box, I don't care what the RCC does.

robindch

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yes I know, you said that in your previous post. The equivalence has been established. What I am asking you is in your view how Catholic/Muslim are they?

As I Heart Internet has confirmed, the term appears to be completely meaningless, at least to people who self-identify as "catholic" and no doubt "muslim" etc too.

Given that religious people can't agree on what the terms mean, then I've no idea at all whether they're catholic, muslim either.

As I said somewhere before, I find it hilarious that they can't agree on the simple stuff, and grossly dishonest that certain individuals use this total confusion to acquire and sustain political power. The religious obviously think differently about selling their dignity and voice.

Mark Hamill

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Of course!! he makes decisions and influences people and policy, both within and without his organisation.

He's also a man, a priest, a bishop, a deacon, an administrator, a salesman, a teacher..etc.

None of that makes him a politician. Maybe a political lobbyist, but lobbyists are not politicians.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

This pope and his predecessors have also criticised bankers, business leaders, bad priests, war-mongers.

Catholics too. He's very good at general criticism without any specific names or actions doled out.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

In fact, I think you'll find the current incumbant has rarely (if ever) mentioned gay people or atheists in anything even close to a negative way.

Wouldn't keep with his PR image. You'll notice that he hasn't done anything for gay people in anything close to a positive way either.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I don't know why he (Francis) hasn't called her out publically on this

Here's some interesting info on the role of the Papal Nuncio in Uganda and the Ugandan Bishops Conference in opposing the particular bill.

http://newwaysministryblog.wordpress.com/2013/12/28/papal-nuncio-responds-to-americans-concern-about-ugandas-anti-gay-bill/

So even after some Ugandan bishops have called on the Pope to come out against the bill, he still hasn't done so? Not exactly a ringing endorsement for someone who has otherwise criticised bankers, business leaders, bad priests, war-mongers etc. etc. You'd swear he had no problem with the law.

robindch

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I believe anyone can call themselves a catholic if they like and no one should feel they have the right to tell them they've chosen incorrectly.

Fair enough. In that case, the term has absolutely no meaning at all.

So, given that you accept the term is utterly meaningless, are you happy with the church claiming that they have the support of people who don't have to agree with anything the church stands for?

I Heart Internet

King Mob wrote: »

So we're back to there being no difference.

How did you get that from me saying:

I was pointing out some of the elements I liked in the RCC....doesn't mean to say others can't find similar or other highlights in their own chosen faith.

King Mob wrote: »

In that case you believe that the names are interchangeable and bare no relation at all to what people actually believe, correct?

No. The names aren't interchangable because there are real differences (as outlined) between the RCC and Protestant churches but there is a huge variety in waht real people actually believe.

King Mob wrote: »

Since this seems to be the case, when the census says that 90% of people are Catholics, what does it actually say about the beliefs of the population?

That 90% of people believe they are christians, in particular, are members of christian churches.

King Mob wrote: »

Does it say that 90% of people agree with all of the church's positions??

Of course not

King Mob wrote: »

That 90% of people go to church?

Of course not

King Mob wrote: »

90% of people believe in God or the afterlife?

Nope, not necessarily.

King Mob wrote: »

If we follow your logic, then the only thing you can possibly conclude from the number is that that many people ticked that box, nothing else..

Au contraire! We can also conclude that 90% of Irish people say that they are christian.