Will religion, in Ireland, die out?

g5fd6ow0hseima

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think it is a numbers game that would inform me that there is a legitimate reason for believing in the Biblical text as the inspired word of God. It is through establishing a continuous chain in the Biblical narrative, and a chain that seems to respond to real truth in individuals lives as well. If the Biblical text was just full of isolated passages with no overriding unity, then there would be a huge problem with regarding it to be God's inspired word to mankind, and indeed, if it didn't seem coherent with truth this would also be problematic.

So because it's well written, thats reason enough to believe that some book written over two thousand years ago is the word of God?

Jakkass wrote: »

Subjective in what sense? - I guess if I regarded morality to be man made I would be inclined to agree that it would be subjective. However, naturally I don't.

But surely you will agree with me that man is more than capable in establishing his own morals. Or do you feel he is unable to do so without being religious?

Jakkass wrote: »

Perhaps the reason why doctors are interested in providing pallative care to alleviate pain rather than euthanasia, is because they find that it is hardly archaic at all. Indeed, if it were archaic it would have very little practical use. However, if you look around the world today, the Gospel has more pragmatic use, and practical activity than ever before.

I was referring to those doctors who supported euthanasia.

I fail to see how religion has any relevance in todays world. When I think of religion, I just see negative issues, such as identity clashes, sectarianism etc... The most healthy societies in this world are secular ones. Religious societies tend to be home to the following - repressed homosexuality, intolerance, discrimination, violence etc.

Jakkass wrote: »

What do you regard as theocratic? - I don't think there is anything wrong with people objecting morally and suggesting that we should be interested in the common good as well and to make sure that our science doesn't turn against this as it has in the past. An example of this would be eugenics in the Nazi regime. Its our responsibility to care about this, because if it doesn't we could be making big mistakes.

Hang on, are you trying to say that further research into stem cells will culminate in a Nazi-like eugenics movement?

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not so sure. You seem quite happy to show your current disposition on boards

I just ran through this thread, and seen your post which had me baffled due to the claim that the bible has something to offer in today's world

Jakkass wrote: »

It was mostly through reading the Bible for myself out of curiosity, that I became interested. It probably differs from person to person though.

Of course.

philologos

Lylah Elegant Visitor wrote: »

So because it's well written, thats reason enough to believe that some book written over two thousand years ago is the word of God?

If it were just in the pages, it wouldn't be enough.

Lylah Elegant Visitor wrote: »

But surely you will agree with me that man is more than capable in establishing his own morals. Or do you feel he is unable to do so without being religious?

I'm sure man can derive his own morality. Indeed, I have argued in the past that atheists can be moral, but they are moral in the same way as everyone else is moral. They derive their morality from moral absolutes which ultimately are derived from their conscience, which in turn is given by God. Morality need not be learned by the pages of the Bible. However, the moral standard that exists and is binding on us is still very much God's.

Most moral action, whether people are willing to admit it or not are based on universal principles of right or wrong. People don't dispute one another because they are subjectively wrong, rather they dispute one another because one believes that one has universally wronged the other. We cannot rebuke, unless we have a coherent universal standard to rebuke the other by. It makes very little sense that morality on a practical level can be relative.

If the evidence didn't suggest to me that humans on a day to day basis behave based on universal principles. I would have no problem accepting subjective morality. However, it is unworkable in moral disputes, and it is impractical.

Lylah Elegant Visitor wrote: »

I fail to see how religion has any relevance in todays world. When I think of religion, I just see negative issues, such as identity clashes, sectarianism etc... The most healthy societies in this world are secular ones. Religious societies tend to be home to the following - repressed homosexuality, intolerance, discrimination, violence etc.

You're abusing the term "secular" here. Secular just means that Government is run without favouritism to religion. It doesn't mean that religion isn't active within those countries. For example the US is a secular state, but Christianity and other faiths are still very much active within it.

Although I am curious to find out why you don't think religion holds any impact in the world today, especially given that the Western legal system (that of justice, and rehabilitation - mercy) arose out of a Judeo-Christian value system.

Lylah Elegant Visitor wrote: »

Hang on, are you trying to say that further research into stem cells will culminate in a Nazi-like eugenics movement?

No, I'm not. I'm suggesting that research can be abused for negative aims, and that we do need to ensure moral and ethical standards within science, and medicine.

Lylah Elegant Visitor wrote: »

I just ran through this thread, and seen your post which had me baffled due to the claim that the bible has something to offer in today's world

Indeed, I can't see how one cannot look to its pages, particularly the example of Jesus and not admire it.

Unfortunately, it is the individual Christians who make the worst case for Christianity. Heck, I'm sure I'm guilty to my own fair share, but I can only try to be the best person I can be learning more about my faith on a daily basis and trying to act better as time goes on.

g5fd6ow0hseima

Jakkass wrote: »

Most moral action, whether people are willing to admit it or not are based on universal principles of right or wrong. People don't dispute one another because they are subjectively wrong, rather they dispute one another because one believes that one has universally wronged the other. We cannot rebuke, unless we have a coherent universal standard to rebuke the other by. It makes very little sense that morality on a practical level can be relative.

If the evidence didn't suggest to me that humans on a day to day basis behave based on universal principles. I would have no problem accepting subjective morality. However, it is unworkable in moral disputes, and it is impractical.

So man didnt naturally come to foster moral norms as means of ruling themselves through an evolutionary process? They were bestowed upon them by god?

Jakkass wrote: »

You're abusing the term "secular" here. Secular just means that Government is run without favouritism to religion. It doesn't mean that religion isn't active within those countries. For example the US is a secular state, but Christianity and other faiths are still very much active within it.

Well I used the term secular to describe societies in which there is very little, if any, visible presence of religion. Perhaps this is not the correct term as the example of the US shows. Being a secular society, it's one in which religion does play a very important role. But look at it, its possibly the most homophobic and racist country in the devleoped world.

Take countries like the Nordic States or the Benelux countries - all states in which the importance of religion has receeded in recent decades, and they're amongst the more enviable societies in the world. But then again, Switzerland permits Euthanasia - which is possibly barbaric in your opinion.

Jakkass wrote: »

Although I am curious to find out why you don't think religion holds any impact in the world today, especially given that the Western legal system (that of justice, and rehabilitation - mercy) arose out of a Judeo-Christian value system.

Of course our legal system evolved from Judeo-Christian thought, but that's along the lines of asking what relevance the ape has in todays world, given that we evolved from that. Humans are constantly evolving, whereas religion is stagnant, sometimes attempting to play catch-up. For the bible to hold relevance in todays world, we would require the human race to become stagnant, or even regressive. The thought that the human race should be influenced, or even governed, in some form or other on the basis of the bible is a scary one. All I can say is i'm glad I didnt grow up on this island fifty years ago.

Jakkass wrote: »

No, I'm not. I'm suggesting that research can be abused for negative aims, and that we do need to ensure moral and ethical standards within science, and medicine.

Everything on this planet can be abused for negative aims, but why mention nazi eugenics and mention stem cell research in the same breath? Why did you say that?

Jakkass wrote: »

Indeed, I can't see how one cannot look to its pages, particularly the example of Jesus and not admire it.

Unfortunately, it is the individual Christians who make the worst case for Christianity. Heck, I'm sure I'm guilty to my own fair share, but I can only try to be the best person I can be learning more about my faith on a daily basis and trying to act better as time goes on.

If you need a 2000 year old text to tell you how to live your life, fair enough.

Mike 1972

Lylah Elegant Visitor wrote: »

So because it's well written, thats reason enough to believe that some book written over two thousand years ago is the word of God? .

Its actually not particularly well written.

Packed with thousands of contradictions, Irrelevencies and vauge passages open to multiple interpretation.

g5fd6ow0hseima

Apologies if it sounds like im expressing this view, but I was just referring to Jakkass who attributes his beliefs to the clear, coherent words of the bible

fontanalis

Was Joe Colemans freak show on today?

coc.k_sh!t_

The-Rigger wrote: »

Maybe it will be viewed the same way as many people nowadays would view our ancestors who used to worship the sun, hilarious.

Though, comparatively I think worshipping the sun at least has some degree sort of merit and logic.

here here. now i'm not a neo pagan or anything (but i know a few) but certainly the old celtic pagan religions made much much more sense than anything that ever came down from the pulpit or the vatican.

Worshipping the sun, moon and earth and the elements and all that certainly had merit far in excess of all the seemingly arbitrary christian bunkum. These were all powerful elements that make life possible - earth -sun-water. Particularly the sun deserves much praise -if there is any god of us it is the sun, without it ther would be nothing but dust and gas and empty space. all the astromomy and aligments the pagan religions have have far more basis and in and can get along well with modern science. Same cannot be said of the "established" religions, which are complete scutter from page one.

nothing wrong with praising the existence of the sun and water, you're not conflicting with the facts of science by doing it. Compare that with 7 day creation stories, please. How can anyone delude themselves that much, it must be hard.

Glenster

Religion will survive in Ireland for the forseeable. And here's why.

Those leper Internet Warriors you hear going on about atheism all the time are, without exception, losers. Tragic, tragic losers. (I'm talking about you neckbeard)

Tragic losers dont breed.

And if we've learned nothing else from Charles Darwin (And we havent) if you dont breed you dont pass on your traits

ipso facto atheism will die out in the next fifty years.

greenpilot

philologos wrote: »

It's interesting, as most Christians (around my age for the most part, but quite a few older than I as well) I have encountered seem to be middle class.

Likewise, I wouldn't even be so certain about the USA in that respect.

dvpower: So I assume that most people who convert to faiths, just secretly have Christian parents somewhere too?

I'm referring to those who come to believe in Christianity in regions where it isn't as prevalent as it is here. In fact it is funny that the region of the world where there is a net decline, is probably the region where most people have Christian parents to begin with!

Philo,

I think now with over 17,000 posts on boards, you may need to spend less time on Boards, and quite a bit more researching the historical and factual origins of both the bible and the beginnings of the RC Church so that you may, like many of us who actually research the stuff in order to make an informed descision, come to a logical conclusion as to whether the wool as been pulled over our collective eyes ever since Constantine and the Council. Most, not all, but most of the folks who mumble their answers to the priest every Sunday havent the foggiest notion as to the Origins of the Church, and how the Bible as we know it came into being, nor do they care, but I can safely predict that in not more than two generations, Religion in Ireland is going to be a whole different landscape indeed.

philologos

I've done a lot of research into my position already, and I will continue to do more over the coming years. I reject the assumption that because I am a Christian that I haven't done research into my position.

As for the RCC, I am of a different denomination, and as a result I'm not a member of that church.

This zombie thread is like going back in a time machine though, so kudos :pac:

saa

Within two generations it will be a minority of the population, you can have the whole country registered as Christians it doesnt mean they are... most arent given much choice are they

Pace2008

Glenster wrote: »

Religion will survive in Ireland for the forseeable. And here's why.

Those leper Internet Warriors you hear going on about atheism all the time are, without exception, losers. Tragic, tragic losers. (I'm talking about you neckbeard)

Tragic losers dont breed.

And if we've learned nothing else from Charles Darwin (And we havent) if you dont breed you dont pass on your traits

ipso facto atheism will die out in the next fifty years.

I'm not sure where you learned your garbled version of evolution, but it certainly wasn't from Darwin.

Apart from the fact that atheism is not an inheritable trait, you seem to be oblivious to, or willfully ignoring, the fact that these tragicleperneckbeardinternetwarriorlosers (you sound like my rage-filled 16-year-old self, good lad) are themselves, for the most part, the progeny of Catholics.

The spread of information and alternate views, largely via the internet, is what's spreading this atheism. Nominal, lapsed Catholics are taking looking at their supposed religion, saying "WTF is is this ****?" and casting it aside having realised it's completely incongrous with everything in which they believe. I suppose in rare cased they'll switch to another denomination or religion, but for the most part they take the godless route.

I don't think religion will ever die off completely, and nor would I want it to, being honest. Variety is the spic of life and all that. There'll be no more single, dominant beasts like Catholicism, but we'll have a smattering of various small religions with no real political sway, a good number of atheists, and plenty of "something more-ers."

Tehachapi

Glenster wrote: »

Religion will survive in Ireland for the forseeable. And here's why.

Those leper Internet Warriors you hear going on about atheism all the time are, without exception, losers. Tragic, tragic losers. (I'm talking about you neckbeard)

Tragic losers dont breed.

And if we've learned nothing else from Charles Darwin (And we havent) if you dont breed you dont pass on your traits

ipso facto atheism will die out in the next fifty years.

Yes.... genes for thinking logically are not favourable in the gene pool :rolleyes:

Ghost Buster

Glenster wrote: »

Religion will survive in Ireland for the forseeable. And here's why.

Those leper Internet Warriors you hear going on about atheism all the time are, without exception, losers. Tragic, tragic losers. (I'm talking about you neckbeard)

Tragic losers dont breed.

And if we've learned nothing else from Charles Darwin (And we havent) if you dont breed you dont pass on your traits

ipso facto atheism will die out in the next fifty years.

I must brush up on my Darwin and see exactly how my catholic great grand parents passed on their catholicism gene down through my grand parents to my very catholic parents before somehow mutating into the atheist gene I possess.
Whats more of a mystery is how a impotent loser such as i has managed to sire two children.
With Mammy as a lapsed protestant wiccan and daddy as a lapsed catholic atheist I wonder what is in their genetic make up
Any idea professor Glenster?

mcmoustache

philologos wrote: »

This zombie thread is like going back in a time machine though, so kudos :pac:

I'm thinking of calling these threads "Jesus Threads". I wonder if it will catch on.


Before it gets locked. I might as well answer the OP:

No, religion will never go away. Lots of people need it in their lives for all sorts of reasons. I don't believe in any of that stuff myself but I've seen plenty of people who no longer believe in God end up believing in all sorts of equally crazy stuff like arse-probing aliens, ghosts and socialism. I think that people have a sense that there is something "out there" beyond the observable reality and since it's not observable, it can be anything they like. God, crystals, ghosts or whatever. The people who promote the idea of God will always be around and it will always sound plausible to some.

ScumLord

Ghost Buster wrote: »

I must brush up on my Darwin and see exactly how my catholic great grand parents passed on their catholicism gene down through my grand parents to my very catholic parents before somehow mutating into the atheist gene I possess.

TV, interwebs and masturbation. Does it make sense now?

Vicxas

Religion will always be around as someone will always blame/rely/preach on religion. It wont go away anytime soon. Itll mutate and evolve but it will always be around.

RichieC

mikom wrote: »

What? You mean you don't all knell before the green altar.
In our new religion we turn our parishioners donations into carbon credits.

this is exactly the kind of drek Sarah Palin would say.

KeithAFC

People will take up something else from religion.

RichieC

there will always be people with no friends who need their religion and those that crash out from the drink and drugs scene seeking their new meaning. Never forget those raised in homes where it is rammed down their throat from day one.

It will become the funny little minority we all laugh at in a generation, but it wont go away altogether.

philologos

RichieC wrote: »

there will always be people with no friends who need their religion and those that crash out from the drink and drugs scene seeking their new meaning. Never forget those raised in homes where it is rammed down their throat from day one.

It will become the funny little minority we all laugh at in a generation, but it wont go away altogether.

This is a rather interesting insight into the difference of the motivations between many atheists and a theist for the most part.

The motive you have is to draw sadistic pleasure from the perceived 'downfall' of Christianity in Ireland. The motive that most theists have in respect to you is to give you food for thought in the hope that one day you might know what they perceive to be the truth. It is out of compassion and respect for you. They believe the knowledge and love of God will change your life for the better and inspire you to do what is good rather than what is evil. It's done for constructive purposes rather than for destructive purposes. I'd say that the following applies for followers of other religions to a certain degree.

It's an interesting comparison isn't it? - As far as I'm concerned I'm in a 'funny minority' already, except I know that by virtue of adopting Christian faith that I will stand out from the general norm.

OneArt

Religion is not going to die out because people are religious by nature. It doesnt have to have anything to do with supernatural gods, it could be over football, art, anything in life. People will always idolize other people to a certain point.

Who knows a new religion might be in vogue within a few years.

Helix

OneArt wrote: »

Religion is not going to die out because people are religious by nature. It doesnt have to have anything to do with supernatural gods, it could be over football, art, anything in life. People will always idolize other people to a certain point.

Who knows a new religion might be in vogue within a few years.

following things, or being a supporter of things, is not the same as religion

St.Spodo

Religious myths, based on absolutely no evidence, are bound to be pushed further and further towards the fringes of society as people become more educated.

Dave!

philologos wrote: »

This is a rather interesting insight into the difference of the motivations between many atheists and a theist for the most part.

The motive you have is to draw sadistic pleasure from the perceived 'downfall' of Christianity in Ireland. The motive that most theists have in respect to you is to give you food for thought in the hope that one day you might know what they perceive to be the truth. It is out of compassion and respect for you. They believe the knowledge and love of God will change your life for the better and inspire you to do what is good rather than what is evil. It's done for constructive purposes rather than for destructive purposes. I'd say that the following applies for followers of other religions to a certain degree.

It's an interesting comparison isn't it? - As far as I'm concerned I'm in a 'funny minority' already, except I know that by virtue of adopting Christian faith that I will stand out from the general norm.

I think his point is that religious beliefs will eventually be akin to belief in a living Elvis and belief that the world is controlled by Jewish lizard people, ie. a quaint little minority with some zany ideas that nobody in their right mind pays much attention to.

Personally I don't do much roffling at the above groups, but I don't take them in any way seriously.

Caulego

IvySlayer wrote: »

I wonder if the next census (2011?) will show a decrease in Roman Catholics? Most people I know just tick the box even though their not practising Christians!

If I recall correctly, according to the last census, Ireland was 70% Catholic!

It all depends of what one means by 'Catholic', which is really an odd sort of thing to describe someone as anyway. Just because one's parents took us to a big barn and had a man in a frock with his collar on backwards splash water on our head, is a nonsensical notion of being 'approved 100% RCC', as people grow up and reject many of the ideas and 'rules' such as the pseudo-cannibalistic ritual called 'Eucharist'. If the stats refer to 70% of Irish being Catholic, does that mean that 70% of Irish are cannibals, and therefore criminals? Does it mean that 70% of rapists are Catholic, or 70% of thieves, or good people? Drawing a veil of inference by using such blanket descriptions leads to false ideas, as no two minds work quite the same anyway.

Caulego

Helix wrote: »

following things, or being a supporter of things, is not the same as religion

That's quite true Helix. Belief or loyalty to a philosophy or any group conviction may be based on belief, depending on the amout of fact behind the ideas, but it doesn't make them 'religious', as you have to have a deity for that to happen. The more belief involved, the less reason, as belief is based on lack of knowledge, which is why religions are based on 'blind faith', as they don't work on reason or fact in a cohesive manner. It's not to say that all they say is wrong, but that the follower often thinks that what they believe (accept without evidence) can be treated in the same was as factual information. Belief is what gets you into trouble, but it's knowledge and facing the facts that gets you out of it, as fact is reliable and stable, while belief is just supposition.

vampire of kilmainham

recylingbin wrote: »

I don't know anyone my age, or younger, who goes to mass. Apart from weddings, funerals, christenings and, maybe, christmas day.
Do you think participation in religion will shrink to levels of 15% or under when our parents generation die out?

its well and truley shrunken allready and a lot of us older folk dont go either

vampire of kilmainham

IvySlayer wrote: »

I wonder if the next census (2011?) will show a decrease in Roman Catholics? Most people I know just tick the box even though their not practising Christians!

If I recall correctly, according to the last census, Ireland was 70% Catholic!

i dont tick the catholic box im a buddist

7sr2z3fely84g5

i think it has in irish aspect except with some of elder citizens in country,but i used to know polish people who went to mass.