Atheists - why do you care?

ShooterSF

Obliq wrote: »

What's the secret then?!

None really. Be born into a first world country seemingly without any major medical issues with relative first world safety and health care around you!

I'm not saying I'm invincible just less likely statistically.

Readyhed wrote: »

What's all this about "Impure Thoughts" ?

Yez mean **** don't yez?

It's alright - athiests are allowed to ****.

****, Shagging, even lust or sexual thoughts. I know they are natural thoughts now but I wish I could go back and tell indoctrinated 13 year old me that and that was the late 90s not the 60s btw.

swampgas

ShooterSF wrote: »

****, Shagging, even lust or sexual thoughts. I know they are natural thoughts now but I wish I could go back and tell indoctrinated 13 year old me that and that was the late 90s not the 60s btw.

Ditto.

Reminds me of being told by my father that "impure thoughts" were not sinful as long as they were not "entertained". When I asked for an explanation of what "entertaining impure thoughts" meant all I got was a very long and embarrassed silence. That embarrassed silence only reinforced my own sense of guilt, more than words could in fact.

Catholicism seems obsessed with sex - thinking about sex (aka impure thoughts), contraception, homosexuality, masturbation (aka impure actions), casual sex, extra-marital sex - all are declared wrong and dirty. So much unnecessary guilt and self-loathing dumped onto naive adolescents. Catholicism in this context is anything but harmless: its key message seems to be that you are a bad, dirty, and depraved human being - simply for thinking something, or doing something completely natural.

And yet people persist in thinking that Catholicism and indoctrinating young minds is harmless, even beneficial. People are strange.

oldrnwisr

The Mustard wrote: »

I agree with much of what you write.

However, I believe that there are many of those who practise as (a la carte, perhaps) Catholics, who support many of the beliefs and rights of those who the Catholic Church would seek to oppress.

I think that most Catholics accept that their own church has committed grave wrongs. I know Catholics that have protested within their own church, calling for change, calling for public disclosures of wrongs. And I know that they retaliated when they were ignored. I wouldn't like to go into further detail on that, at the slim risk of identifying anyone.

I would accept that Catholic dogma has had a profound impact upon our society, much of it wantonly ultra-conservative and negative.

I would also accept that most of the improvements in the position over the past 60 years have come about due to opposition to the position of the Church.

I would draw a distinction between the belief in God held by a measured, reasonable, just Catholic who aspires to a fair society for all, and the hellfire, brimstone and abuse brought about by the domination of the Catholic Church for more than two millenia.

I know quite a few Catholics who I would regard as being measured, reasonable, just and fair, especially when it comes to people's rights and what those rights should be.

Agreed. Given that ostensibly 84% of the country is catholic while 70-75% of the country supports gay marriage, there does seem to be an overwhelming number of "catholics" who pay no attention whatsoever to the actual teachings of their religion. In fact recently, the Iona Institute have been harping on about a survey of catholic beliefs in Ireland which found that 92% of catholics believed in god, which means that 8% of catholics disagree with the most basic requirement for being catholic.
It's hardly surprising though given how far removed catholic teaching is from the source material.

As far as being a measured and reasonable catholic goes, I'm not sure that those characteristics can logically occupy the same space. In order to take a reasonable position on social issues it is necessary to give up what it means to be catholic.
First of all, with regard to the abuses committed by the church, in the long run this shouldn't matter to a true catholic. By that, I mean that someone who is a believing catholic and accepts the soteriological claims of the catholic church has to accept that salvation lies in their faith in and adherence to the magesterium of the church.
Secondly, the social positions of the catholic church with regard to contraception, abortion, same-sex marriage etc. are such that it's either a reasonable position or the catholic position. You can't have a reasonable catholic position. No sane person could watch the ongoing AIDS crisis in Africa and still agree with the catholic position on contraception. No sane person could watch the pope blessing people hoping to bring in a bill legalising the murder of gay people and say gee there's an organisation I want to be part of.

The Mustard wrote: »

Personally, I found it about as liberating as losing my car keys. Not trying to be smart, but I found it an unpleasant experience. None of my other core beliefs changed in any way. I gained nothing.

Well I suppose everyone is different. For me, losing my faith was part of a larger experience of coming to know more about the universe and our place in it. Having realised that neither catholicism nor christianity have any merit, I began to learn about evolution and cosmology and all the real and demonstrable evidence we have where previously there had only been 2000 year old fairytales. It was like finding out how a magic trick is done. You kind of revel in the newfound knowledge while wondering at how you got sucked in by the trick in the first place.

Pat Mustard

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Agreed. Given that ostensibly 84% of the country is catholic while 70-75% of the country supports gay marriage, there does seem to be an overwhelming number of "catholics" who pay no attention whatsoever to the actual teachings of their religion. In fact recently, the Iona Institute have been harping on about a survey of catholic beliefs in Ireland which found that 92% of catholics believed in god, which means that 8% of catholics disagree with the most basic requirement for being catholic.
It's hardly surprising though given how far removed catholic teaching is from the source material.

As far as being a measured and reasonable catholic goes, I'm not sure that those characteristics can logically occupy the same space. In order to take a reasonable position on social issues it is necessary to give up what it means to be catholic.
First of all, with regard to the abuses committed by the church, in the long run this shouldn't matter to a true catholic. By that, I mean that someone who is a believing catholic and accepts the soteriological claims of the catholic church has to accept that salvation lies in their faith in and adherence to the magesterium of the church.
Secondly, the social positions of the catholic church with regard to contraception, abortion, same-sex marriage etc. are such that it's either a reasonable position or the catholic position. You can't have a reasonable catholic position. No sane person could watch the ongoing AIDS crisis in Africa and still agree with the catholic position on contraception. No sane person could watch the pope blessing people hoping to bring in a bill legalising the murder of gay people and say gee there's an organisation I want to be part of.

I think that the logical conclusion of what you have written is that if one is a genuine Catholic, one must obey without thinking, without question. Although I know that this still happens to an extent, there are many Catholics who question a lot of what the Church says. There are many who will not accept certain aspects at all. I am not certain of your statistics, but they tend to support this position, as you pointed out. However, I think that there may be a tendency to incorrectly describe people as non-catholics because those people choose not to accept aspects of church dogma. I think that is simply not correct.

You wouldn't find people saying that someone wasn't a member of Fíne Gael simply because he didn't agree with all party policy.

I took a look on this forum and I saw another thread concerning a la carte Catholics or cultural Catholics. Personally, I believe that a large proportion of Catholics in this country could be described a la carte Catholics. They believe in God. However, they may not believe in Papal Infallibiity, for example. Does anyone really believe that the geriatric Pope is infallible? Maybe some do, but there are probably a great many Catholics in Ireland who don't.

In short, I believe that it is possible to be a Catholic and to have a fair and reasonable overall worldview. In saying this, I draw a distinction between Irish people, the great majority of whom are Catholic, and the Catholic Church as a religious institution. I do not defend the position of the Church in any way.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Well I suppose everyone is different. For me, losing my faith was part of a larger experience of coming to know more about the universe and our place in it. Having realised that neither catholicism nor christianity have any merit, I began to learn about evolution and cosmology and all the real and demonstrable evidence we have where previously there had only been 2000 year old fairytales. It was like finding out how a magic trick is done. You kind of revel in the newfound knowledge while wondering at how you got sucked in by the trick in the first place.

It's interesting how people came to this, how it has affected them, and the direction they have gone from there. Thank you.

pauldla

swampgas wrote: »

Reminds me of being told by my father that "impure thoughts" were not sinful as long as they were not "entertained". When I asked for an explanation of what "entertaining impure thoughts" meant all I got was a very long and embarrassed silence. That embarrassed silence only reinforced my own sense of guilt, more than words could in fact.

Though I was quite the Holy Joe in my formative years, I was always amused by the thought of 'entertaining impure thoughts'. If the priest asked us if we had 'entertained impure thoughts', I wanted to answer 'no, they entertained me'.

Shenshen

The Mustard wrote: »

I think that the logical conclusion of what you have written is that if one is a genuine Catholic, one must obey without thinking, without question. Although I know that this still happens to an extent, there are many Catholics who question a lot of what the Church says. There are many who will not accept certain aspects at all. I am not certain of your statistics, but they tend to support this position, as you pointed out. However, I think that there may be a tendency to incorrectly describe people as non-catholics because those people choose not to accept aspects of church dogma. I think that is simply not correct.

You wouldn't find people saying that someone wasn't a member of Fíne Gael simply because he didn't agree with all party policy.

I took a look on this forum and I saw another thread concerning a la carte Catholics or cultural Catholics. Personally, I believe that a large proportion of Catholics in this country could be described a la carte Catholics. They believe in God. However, they may not believe in Papal Infallibiity, for example. Does anyone really believe that the geriatric Pope is infallible? Maybe some do, but there are probably a great many Catholics in Ireland who don't.

In short, I believe that it is possible to be a Catholic and to have a fair and reasonable overall worldview. In saying this, I draw a distinction between Irish people, the great majority of whom are Catholic, and the Catholic Church as a religious institution. I do not defend the position of the Church in any way.


It's interesting how people came to this, how it has affected them, and the direction they have gone from there. Thank you.

It is indeed an interesting question - how much of what the church says would you have to actually believe in to be considered Catholic?
And how much disagreement would the church allow? And who gets to say who is and who isn't Catholic?

There's an awful lot of grey area there, that much is certain.
To take up your example of the Fine Gael member - say that person was a member of the party, had at one point in the past signed up for membership and keeps paying the fee. But at the same time, this person has for the past 20 years never once voted for Fine Gael, has protested their party program, and is convinced that Labour's program is actually the way forward.
Yet he remains a Fine Gael member as some important business associates of his are members as well, and because he enjoys going to the party meetings for the free food and drink and the company?

From what I have seen, this is your essential a-la-carte Irish Catholic. Was baptised as an infant, went to communion and confirmation for the dress-up, the presents and the party, and will now attend church for funerals, weddings and baptisms, as well as christmases, because everybody else does and they wouldn't want to be the odd one out.
There's a vague belief in a sort of god, but if asked if they belief in any of the essential, basic statements of Catholic belief - transsubstantiation, the virgin birth, confessions, etc. - they'd be likely to laugh in your face.

And while it may be annoying to most of the atheists here, who feel that these people should be more honest to themselves and stop calling themselves Catholic, their very freedom to not be bothered is in fact something that they have to thank secularists for.
Go back some 20 or 30 years, and the pressure excerted by the church would have been such to essentially force people to attend church each Sunday, to publicly at least proclaim their belief in any and all church doctrines, and to not voice any doubts other than in a secretive whisper.

And while the country is no longer occupied by the British, the British now have very little interest to re-occupy it, while the church is still actively working to regain its influence.

The fact that as part of the legislation process for the X-case, the committee will this week be spending a morning session listening to Catholic bishops is a disturbing reminder of this.

oldrnwisr

The Mustard wrote: »

I think that the logical conclusion of what you have written is that if one is a genuine Catholic, one must obey without thinking, without question. Although I know that this still happens to an extent, there are many Catholics who question a lot of what the Church says. There are many who will not accept certain aspects at all. I am not certain of your statistics, but they tend to support this position, as you pointed out. However, I think that there may be a tendency to incorrectly describe people as non-catholics because those people choose not to accept aspects of church dogma. I think that is simply not correct.

You wouldn't find people saying that someone wasn't a member of Fíne Gael simply because he didn't agree with all party policy.

I took a look on this forum and I saw another thread concerning a la carte Catholics or cultural Catholics. Personally, I believe that a large proportion of Catholics in this country could be described a la carte Catholics. They believe in God. However, they may not believe in Papal Infallibiity, for example. Does anyone really believe that the geriatric Pope is infallible? Maybe some do, but there are probably a great many Catholics in Ireland who don't.

In short, I believe that it is possible to be a Catholic and to have a fair and reasonable overall worldview. In saying this, I draw a distinction between Irish people, the great majority of whom are Catholic, and the Catholic Church as a religious institution. I do not defend the position of the Church in any way.

OK, so here's the thing about Church teachings and ordinary catholics.

In Catholicism there is a specific theological concept known as the magisterium which encompasses the teaching authority of the church. This covers things like papal infallibility which you touch on in your post. The magisterium covers a range of teachings each with its own grade of authority. So when the pope speaks "ex cathedra" and makes a claim about some scriptural or doctrinal teaching, such a teaching becomes part of the sacred magisterium and all catholics are expected to adhere to that teaching unquestioningly. Other teachings of the pope become part of the ordinary magisterium, indicating that they are of a fallible nature. However, faithful catholics are still required to make a "submission of intellect and will" referred to in catholicism as "obsequium religiosum" which is described as:

"Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking."

In Donum Veritas, this idea of religious submission was further expanded by establishing the adherence required for the different degrees of teaching:

"When the Magisterium of the Church makes an infallible pronouncement and solemnly declares that a teaching is found in Revelation, the assent called for is that of theological faith. This kind of adherence is to be given even to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium when it proposes for belief a teaching of faith as divinely revealed. When the Magisterium proposes "in a definitive way" truths concerning faith and morals, which, even if not divinely revealed, are nevertheless strictly and intimately connected with Revelation, these must be firmly accepted and held. When the Magisterium, not intending to act "definitively", teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect. This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith."

Long story short, faithful catholics are expected to adhere to all teachings of the church. The only distinction lies in whether they're supposed to simply obey the teaching or actually believe that the teaching is correct.

As for your Fine Gael analogy, Fine Gael do not define membership eligibility on the basis of adherence to policy, the Catholic church do. This is not a No True Scotsman situation. Someone is not defined as a catholic merely by self-identification. There are a specific set of requirements to be fulfilled.

Oh, and finally regarding the stats from my last post, sources here:

Support for same-sex marriage

Census results by religion

Pat Mustard

Shenshen wrote: »

From what I have seen, this is your essential a-la-carte Irish Catholic. Was baptised as an infant, went to communion and confirmation for the dress-up, the presents and the party, and will now attend church for funerals, weddings and baptisms, as well as christmases, because everybody else does and they wouldn't want to be the odd one out.
There's a vague belief in a sort of god, but if asked if they belief in any of the essential, basic statements of Catholic belief - transsubstantiation, the virgin birth, confessions, etc. - they'd be likely to laugh in your face.

I don't know if they'd laugh in your face. I think most of them simply couldn't care less about that kind of thing. I certainly know that any of my Catholic friends couldn't give a fiddlers. It seems to me that atheists on this thread know much more about Catholicism than the majority of Catholics that I know. As far as I can see, the people who really examine their faith, the true believers, are the atheists.

Shenshen wrote: »

And while it may be annoying to most of the atheists here, who feel that these people should be more honest to themselves and stop calling themselves Catholic, their very freedom to not be bothered is in fact something that they have to thank secularists for.
Go back some 20 or 30 years, and the pressure excerted by the church would have been such to essentially force people to attend church each Sunday, to publicly at least proclaim their belief in any and all church doctrines, and to not voice any doubts other than in a secretive whisper.

The issue of secularists having fought for these rights is something which has been mentioned to me a number of times in this thread. Which examples would you use? Ruairi Quinn has been campaigning to remove the Church/priests from schools.

I wasn't aware that athesists would be angry at self-identifying a la carte catholics for their moral laziness, essentially.

Shenshen wrote: »

And while the country is no longer occupied by the British, the British now have very little interest to re-occupy it, while the church is still actively working to regain its influence.

I cannot see that the Church has achieved success over the last 15-20 years, and with the kind of arrogance shown by the Church, it really doesn't have much credibility. But I take your point.

Shenshen wrote: »

The fact that as part of the legislation process for the X-case, the committee will this week be spending a morning session listening to Catholic bishops is a disturbing reminder of this.

Well it's against the principle of separation of Church and State, so I agree that it is inappropriate.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

OK, so here's the thing about Church teachings and ordinary catholics.

In Catholicism there is a specific theological concept known as the magisterium which encompasses the teaching authority of the church. This covers things like papal infallibility which you touch on in your post. The magisterium covers a range of teachings each with its own grade of authority. So when the pope speaks "ex cathedra" and makes a claim about some scriptural or doctrinal teaching, such a teaching becomes part of the sacred magisterium and all catholics are expected to adhere to that teaching unquestioningly. Other teachings of the pope become part of the ordinary magisterium, indicating that they are of a fallible nature. However, faithful catholics are still required to make a "submission of intellect and will" referred to in catholicism as "obsequium religiosum" which is described as:

"Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking."

In Donum Veritas, this idea of religious submission was further expanded by establishing the adherence required for the different degrees of teaching:

"When the Magisterium of the Church makes an infallible pronouncement and solemnly declares that a teaching is found in Revelation, the assent called for is that of theological faith. This kind of adherence is to be given even to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium when it proposes for belief a teaching of faith as divinely revealed. When the Magisterium proposes "in a definitive way" truths concerning faith and morals, which, even if not divinely revealed, are nevertheless strictly and intimately connected with Revelation, these must be firmly accepted and held. When the Magisterium, not intending to act "definitively", teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect. This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith."

Long story short, faithful catholics are expected to adhere to all teachings of the church. The only distinction lies in whether they're supposed to simply obey the teaching or actually believe that the teaching is correct.

As for your Fine Gael analogy, Fine Gael do not define membership eligibility on the basis of adherence to policy, the Catholic church do. This is not a No True Scotsman situation. Someone is not defined as a catholic merely by self-identification. There are a specific set of requirements to be fulfilled.

Oh, and finally regarding the stats from my last post, sources here:

Support for same-sex marriage

Census results by religion

Thank you for those links. I will take a look at those later, as I don't have time now.

Your point is that by definition these 'a la carte Catholics' are not Catholics at all, except by self-identification.

Let us take this to be the case. We still have all of those people who identify themselves as Catholics in Ireland. They are the same people, with the same cherry-picked set of beliefs. They still believe in God. I think that I know, because I used to be one of those people.

I still believe that one can find many reasonable, just, fair-minded self identified Catholics among these people.

PopePalpatine

The thing is, it's in the best interests of the Church in Ireland not to remind nominal Catholics of the Church tenets which they don't follow, otherwise they can't use "84%" as a threat to the government.

Shenshen

The Mustard wrote: »

I don't know if they'd laugh in your face. I think most of them simply couldn't care less about that kind of thing. I certainly know that any of my Catholic friends couldn't give a fiddlers. It seems to me that atheists on this thread know much more about Catholicism than the majority of Catholics that I know. As far as I can see, the people who really examine their faith, the true believers, are the atheists.

There have been Catholics on this very forum in the past who, when asked if they believe in any of the great dogmas (or is it dogmata? Grammar-dilemma) or mysteries, told the person asking to stop being so silly.
Based on that I think yes, a lot of them would find the notion of believing in the bread and wine actually, really turning into flesh and blood ridiculous at best.

The issue of secularists having fought for these rights is something which has been mentioned to me a number of times in this thread. Which examples would you use? Ruairi Quinn has been campaigning to remove the Church/priests from schools.

One doesn't need to be an atheist to be a secularist.

It wasn't aware that athesists would be angry at self-identifying a la carte catholics for their moral laziness, essentially.

Many atheists do get frustrated with it, I think.
The reasons are not so much moral outrage at the laziness of others, they are more to do with the big numbers game : Every person who essentially doesn't care but counts themselves as a Catholic during the census, for example, is providing a basis and an arguement for the church to continue its influence on Irish society to the best of its ability.
As far as they are concerned, they're speaking for 84% of the population, after all.
And politicians will act in way they would assume will please those 84%.

I cannot see that the Church has achieved success over the last 15-20 years, and with the kind of arrogance shown by the Church, it really doesn't have much credibility. But I take your point.

Considering that the bishops get a separate, lengthy hearing on an issue that will never, ever effect any one of them personally, I feel it still has far too much credibility for peace of mind.
Secularism still has a long way to go.

Pat Mustard

PopePalpatine wrote: »

The thing is, it's in the best interests of the Church in Ireland not to remind nominal Catholics of the Church tenets which they don't follow, otherwise they can't use "84%" as a threat to the government.

I wondered the same thing. Maybe they'd accept an atheist Catholic?;)

Shenshen wrote: »

Secularism still has a long way to go.

Yes indeed.

Many atheists do get frustrated with it, I think.
The reasons are not so much moral outrage at the laziness of others, they are more to do with the big numbers game : Every person who essentially doesn't care but counts themselves as a Catholic during the census, for example, is providing a basis and an arguement for the church to continue its influence on Irish society to the best of its ability.
As far as they are concerned, they're speaking for 84% of the population, after all.
And politicians will act in way they would assume will please those 84%.

I think that this is the answer to my question. Thank you.

Zombrex

The Mustard wrote: »

I'm not sure whether you are taking the mick here or not. However, I think I had the same Catholic upbringing as my friends, most of whom are now atheists. However, I think that this has more to do with type of mindset that comes with working in certain occupations.

It was in jest, but there is a point behind it. To be a Catholic means to submit to the authority of the Catholic Church as God's representation on Earth. They interpret scripture for you, they decide what is correct and false. Thinking for yourself in spiritual matters is not really a Catholic thing, by design as the Church would consider you unqualified to do so.

The Mustard wrote: »

I wonder if the view of the Catholic Church as a viable threat harks back to the power that they held in the 1960s rather than the present day situation.

The church as a viable threat is related to its structure and its assertions (again as the guardians of moral authority), rather than any particular place or time. Thankfully their influence in society, at least in the west, has weakened in recent times. Lets hope that continues.

The Mustard wrote: »

Basically, I can see your point. I've always taken these freedoms for granted. I've grown up with them. But I've grown up with freedom from the British too, and I don't hold a major grudge against them. I'm looking at things the way that they are today. I don't see the struggle that others are talking about in this day and age. Perhaps I'm insulated from it to a greater or lesser extent.

Well the British don't make a fundamental claim on Ireland. The Catholic Church does make a fundamental claim on moral authority, as do most religions. It is part of their appeal, it means followers don't have to consider or justify their own moral opinions.

The Mustard wrote: »

I don't understand why you have referred to Fred West.

Just an example of where the notion of a fair trial was seen as distasteful to some who thought since West was clearly guilty and clearly a monster he should be simply thrown in jail rather than risk a trial where he might get off on technicalities.

As for the religious symbols on public property, the point is that if you start exceptions then you enter into a discussion of why some separation of church and state is acceptable and some isn't. Which enters into a subjective argument that ultimately can only lead to the State sponsoring on religion over another?

For example, say they allow a cross in the courthouse. Ok, why a cross and not something else. Well the USA is a "Christian" nation so naturally a cross should be ok shouldn't it. But then the State isn't supposed to recognize any religion, even the unofficial official one.

ShooterSF

There are numerous problems with people using the label "Catholic" when they don't follow the church's teachings.

First off it makes the label pointless. If anyone can believe anything about the supernatural up to not believing in god and still call themselves catholic then what value does the label bring to a discussion. If someone tells me they are a patriotic catholic vegetarian I can safely assume they love their country and don't eat meat similar to a patriotic vegetarian.

Secondly it allows the leaders of the catholic church to justify their desire to interfere in our state as they represent over 80% of the population. I've used the analogy before but imagine the KKK had great cake raffles and 80& of the country described themselves as members of the KKK because they enjoy the raffles but aren't actually racist. Now imagine the KKK demanding that their voice be heard on issues of state because they represent four fifths of the population and you can see the problems that arise.

Thirdly it's just silly. There are plenty of fitting labels which are less likely to have a listener misunderstand your beliefs. Nondescript christian, theist etc. If I call myself a catholic and someone thinks my views on contraception are awful whose fault is it there was a misunderstanding? Labels carry meaning or they have no use.

Lastly the Fine Gael comparison doesn't really work as the Catholic church is not a democratic institution and it has a set of strict rules that followers need to obey or they face punishment in the afterlife.

oldrnwisr

The Mustard wrote: »

Your point is that by definition these 'a la carte Catholics' are not Catholics at all, except by self-identification.

Let us take this to be the case. We still have all of those people who identify themselves as Catholics in Ireland. They are the same people, with the same cherry-picked set of beliefs. They still believe in God. I think that I know, because I used to be one of those people.

I still believe that one can find many reasonable, just, fair-minded self identified Catholics among these people.

I know that there are many reasonable just and fair-minded people who self-identify as Catholic, the problem is they're only reasonable by abandoning what it means to be catholic.

I think Shooter nailed it in his last post. A word like catholic is a label, it is a useful shortcut in a conversation because it implies a certain position which is understood between all parties. Just as in Shooter's example, if you label yourself vegetarian it implies you hold a certain viewpoint with regard to diet. So if you don't hold to the beliefs and teachings which are associated with the word catholic then why use the label. The answer is indolence and indifference. These people make no effort to understand the beliefs which they associate themselves with, if they did we'd have a lot more atheists.

Bannasidhe

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I know that there are many reasonable just and fair-minded people who self-identify as Catholic, the problem is they're only reasonable by abandoning what it means to be catholic.

I think Shooter nailed it in his last post. A word like catholic is a label, it is a useful shortcut in a conversation because it implies a certain position which is understood between all parties. Just as in Shooter's example, if you label yourself vegetarian it implies you hold a certain viewpoint with regard to diet. So if you don't hold to the beliefs and teachings which are associated with the word catholic then why use the label. The answer is indolence and indifference. These people make no effort to understand the beliefs which they associate themselves with, if they did we'd have a lot more atheists.

Á la carte Catholics are like those 'vegetarians' who eat fish and chicken.

Zombrex

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Á la carte Catholics are like those 'vegetarians' who eat fish and chicken.

while saying that you are not supposed to take the whole not eating meat thing "that seriously" :P

Sarky

More like vegetarians who eat fish, chicken and the occasional medium-rare steak when the opportunity arises.

robindch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Á la carte Catholics are like those 'vegetarians' who eat fish and chicken.

Hence the term 'Cafeteria Catholics':

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

lazygal

I posted a thread on expecting others to defend their beliefs partly due to the defensiveness I found on the part of a lot of cultural Catholics when asked if they believe some of the more unsavory or just ordinary dogma of the faith to which they profess to belong. I've had the dubious honour of telling a friend of mine who says she's a practising Catholic that the host is not symbolic, contrary to what she might believe, and if she does believe its symbolic she's a Protestant. I've found no 'Catholic' supports the stated doctrine of their church on homosexuality, divorce, IVF, contraception, women priests, 'mental reservations' or indeed any social commentary. I repeatedly hear the 'lots of good priest/nuns/I know a lovely monk' arguments as to why they remain in the fold, lots of 'changing things from the inside' and 'its the people who are the church not the hierarchy' but they don't seem to realise the church isn't interested in change and has no intention of doing so. It believes its been running a fine successful corporation for two thousand years and hasn't needed to bend to popular opinion at any stage to maintain its dominance.

I care because I don't want to live in a country where its seen as normal to start each session of parliament or county council meeting with a Catholic prayer, where one religion owns over 90% of the school system despite caring little or nothing for children for decades, in some cases using them as slave labour or selling them to other people, where its seen as totally acceptable for celibate men to advise the legislature on what a woman can and cannot do with a clump of cells that has taken up residence in her uterus and where you are constantly asked to explain why you don't do things like baptisms or church weddings rather than why you do.

ShooterSF

lazygal wrote: »

I repeatedly hear the 'lots of good priest/nuns/I know a lovely monk' arguments as to why they remain in the fold, lots of 'changing things from the inside' and 'its the people who are the church not the hierarchy' but they don't seem to realise the church isn't interested in change and has no intention of doing so. It believes its been running a fine successful corporation for two thousand years and hasn't needed to bend to popular opinion at any stage to maintain its dominance.

Yeah this whole change from the inside thing is absolutely the most mind boggling thing I have ever met with people in the Catholic church. The Christian god doesn't run his regime like a democracy. Humanity get no vote in what is or isn't good or bad. He lays down the rules and humanity follows that's one of the few characteristics of yahweh that all christian sects seem to agree on. And if they think that the church is simply misinterpreting the bible, switch to a sect you agree with.

I care because I don't want to live in a country where its seen as normal to start each session of parliament or county council meeting with a Catholic prayer, where one religion owns over 90% of the school system despite caring little or nothing for children for decades, in some cases using them as slave labour or selling them to other people, where its seen as totally acceptable for celibate men to advise the legislature on what a woman can and cannot do with a clump of cells that has taken up residence in her uterus and where you are constantly asked to explain why you don't do things like baptisms or church weddings rather than why you do.

Oh I'm out in the summer hopefully, with no desire to take up permanent residence back here any time soon.

Bannasidhe

ShooterSF wrote: »

Yeah this whole change from the inside thing is absolutely the most mind boggling thing I have ever met with people in the Catholic church. The Christian god doesn't run his regime like a democracy. Humanity get no vote in what is or isn't good or bad. He lays down the rules and humanity follows that's one of the few characteristics of yahweh that all christian sects seem to agree on. And if they think that the church is simply misinterpreting the bible, switch to a sect you agree with.

Humanists like Erasmus and Thomas More advocated 'change from within' back in the 16th century - we're still waiting. Even the small steps taken in VAT II are being clawed back.

mewso

The whole preachy Dawkins thing is something I really wonder about. There is no disputing that he is an outspoken Atheist but preachy? He wrote a book that people can read or ignore, debates religious folk which you can attend or ignore, can be viewed on youtube or ignored, gets interviewed on programs that either share his views or want to belittle his views (think Tubridy) but at no point does he go out on the street and try to preach to anyone.

I've said it before that he is very direct when responding to religious people but the key word here is responding. His directness winds people up and it's from there that it gets turned into preaching in certain peoples' minds in my opinion. He may not be everyone's cup of tea but is he really preaching. I don't think so.

Galvasean

I'd like to take this opportunity to credit The Mustard for his (I assume it's a he based on Avatar selection) continuing contributions to the thread. It is refreshing to see an OP stick around for some reasoned debate. It helps us all learn. It is all too often that the OPs of topics like this one are very confrontational and run off when the proverbial 'gets tough'. Thankfully this is not the case with this thread. Long may it reign.

Pat Mustard

mewso wrote: »

The whole preachy Dawkins thing is something I really wonder about. There is no disputing that he is an outspoken Atheist but preachy? He wrote a book that people can read or ignore, debates religious folk which you can attend or ignore, can be viewed on youtube or ignored, gets interviewed on programs that either share his views or want to belittle his views (think Tubridy) but at no point does he go out on the street and try to preach to anyone.

I've said it before that he is very direct when responding to religious people but the key word here is responding. His directness winds people up and it's from there that it gets turned into preaching in certain peoples' minds in my opinion. He may not be everyone's cup of tea but is he really preaching. I don't think so.

WRT Dawkins, it was a reference to his abrasive, condescending style.

Bannasidhe

The Mustard wrote: »

WRT Dawkins, it was a reference to his abrasive, condescending style.

I can take or leave Dawkins personally, but at least that is easy to do - unlike the various religious 'leaders' whose opinions are screamed out in newspaper headlines, on TV and over the radio - now that's what I call 'preachy'.

Pat Mustard

Galvasean wrote: »

I'd like to take this opportunity to credit The Mustard for his (I assume it's a he based on Avatar selection) continuing contributions to the thread. It is refreshing to see an OP stick around for some reasoned debate. It helps us all learn. It is all too often that the OPs of topics like this one are very confrontational and run off when the proverbial 'gets tough'. Thankfully this is not the case with this thread. Long may it reign.

Appreciated, Galvasean.

I hadn't set out to debate anything, initially. I was genuinely curious, and my question was intended to discover people's motivations. I must say that being a newcomer to the forum, I was a little surprised at the patient, frank and reasonable replies made by posters here.

nozzferrahhtoo

The Mustard wrote: »

WRT Dawkins, it was a reference to his abrasive, condescending style.

I wish I could see him being either abrasive or condescending. I have yet to see it or get links to it. The worst I have seen of him is him getting a little frustrated at some pretty dire questioning and to be honest in those cases he reacted better than I would have. If someone has a link the first time he was on the late late show (before tubs hosted it I think) is a good example of this.

I am one of the "I could take him or leave him" crowd too. I think there are MUCH better speakers on the circuit on the subject of religion. He has his place I feel... around the fence sitters and the people who do not really know the basic arguments in the theism debates... and in being one of the most successful people to make the theism debates more talked about and making it "ok" to be an atheist.... but once you get past 101 you move on to other writers and speakers. Those of us who know the discourse well likely have a respect for Dawkins but we have moved past him onto deeper books and talks.

But I have never got the accusations of being strident, abrasive or condescending. I simply have never seen it. And remember one of his biggest journalistic detractors in Ireland who hates everything he stands for even met the man and was forced to write an article about how lovely he turned out to actually be.

I think these comments about Dawkins are just a great ad hominem meme the theism machine has managed to mass produce and people seem happy to be spoon fed it an regurgitate it on demand.

None of which is helped by the selective mis-quoting he is unfortunately subject to. The best known example of which is when he likened labeling children as religious before they have a chance to decide for themselves as "Child Abuse" (perhaps a bit strong but his point is sound).... which more people than I care to even guess at are happy to selectively mis-quote as him having called Religion itself Child Abuse.

There is also a certain "Godwins Law" aspect to the whole thing where it seems the mathematical probability of a theist derailing a thread using ad hominem personal attacks against Dawkins in order to troll a reaction out of the atheists... increases in proportion to how badly they are losing the On Topic debate at that time.

Galvasean

The Mustard wrote: »

Appreciated, Galvasean.

I hadn't set out to debate anything, initially. I was genuinely curious, and my question was intended to discover people's motivations. I must say that being a newcomer to the forum, I was a little surprised at the patient, frank and reasonable replies made by posters here.

Generally you get what you dish out in this forum. If you're polite people tend to be polite back. Some users are always getting berated in this forum... and with good cause IMO. :pac:

robindch

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The worst I have seen of him is him getting a little frustrated at some pretty dire questioning and to be honest in those cases he reacted better than I would have.

Dawkins is strident? I'd have awarded him a prize for keeping his cool in this exchange:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo

swampgas

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I wish I could see him being either abrasive or condescending. I have yet to see it or get links to it. The worst I have seen of him is him getting a little frustrated at some pretty dire questioning and to be honest in those cases he reacted better than I would have. If someone has a link the first time he was on the late late show (before tubs hosted it I think) is a good example of this.

I am one of the "I could take him or leave him" crowd too. I think there are MUCH better speakers on the circuit on the subject of religion. He has his place I feel... around the fence sitters and the people who do not really know the basic arguments in the theism debates... and in being one of the most successful people to make the theism debates more talked about and making it "ok" to be an atheist.... but once you get past 101 you move on to other writers and speakers. Those of us who know the discourse well likely have a respect for Dawkins but we have moved past him onto deeper books and talks.

But I have never got the accusations of being strident, abrasive or condescending. I simply have never seen it. And remember one of his biggest journalistic detractors in Ireland who hates everything he stands for even met the man and was forced to write an article about how lovely he turned out to actually be.

I think these comments about Dawkins are just a great ad hominem meme the theism machine has managed to mass produce and people seem happy to be spoon fed it an regurgitate it on demand.

None of which is helped by the selective mis-quoting he is unfortunately subject to. The best known example of which is when he likened labeling children as religious before they have a chance to decide for themselves as "Child Abuse" (perhaps a bit strong but his point is sound).... which more people than I care to even guess at are happy to selectively mis-quote as him having called Religion itself Child Abuse.

There is also a certain "Godwins Law" aspect to the whole thing where it seems the mathematical probability of a theist derailing a thread using ad hominem personal attacks against Dawkins in order to troll a reaction out of the atheists... increases in proportion to how badly they are losing the On Topic debate at that time.

Very much agree - I think a lot of it boils down to people simply not wanting to hear what he has to say. So they accuse him of being strident, militant, condescending, etc. as they prefer that to actually tackling his arguments. His manner of speaking is slightly donnish and this can put people's backs up as well.

Overall though I'm a bit of a fan of Dawkins, warts and all. I found the Selfish Gene an interesting read when it came out, although I haven't read much more of his books after that. (If I ever write a book as good as the Selfish Gene though, I'll be happy.) I also think he has done a lot to bring atheism out into the open and create public debate on the role of religion in society - a pretty thankless job, on the whole.

Beruthiel

Shenshen wrote: »

Considering that the bishops get a separate, lengthy hearing on an issue that will never, ever effect any one of them personally, I feel it still has far too much credibility for peace of mind.

This has the blood vessel on the side of my brow throbbing at such an alarming rate that I find it difficult to discuss it in a calm manner.
I cannot, for the life of me, understand why a bunch of bishops get to have any kind of say on this matter.
It frustrates me beyond reason to see our government entertain them. It gives them legitimacy and that galls me.

/rant

nozzferrahhtoo

robindch wrote: »

Dawkins is strident? I'd have awarded him a prize for keeping his cool in this exchange:

Agreed. Even her face in the still picture You Tube presents above seems to stimulate some throw back neanderthal need in my cerebellum to engage in violence against it which my cerebrum only just manages to counter act.

And that is before hitting Play.

He is either a lot calmer and less strident than people claim and a more Zen man than I, or he was on some seriously calming medication that day as he stood there listening to that.

DB21

What is it about creationists that you can actually SEE the crazy in them before you even hear them speak?

WRT: Robin's video above

Otacon

DB21 wrote: »

What is it about creationists that you can actually SEE the crazy in them before you even hear them speak?

The answer to that is in your own question. The reason you can see the crazy in them is because of the crazy in them!

Galvasean

DB21 wrote: »

What is it about creationists that you can actually SEE the crazy in them before you even hear them speak?

WRT: Robin's video above

I think it's the lack of natural blinking patterns - a sure sign of brainwashing. I'd be rather uncomfortable in a direct conversation with someone whose eyes had the appearance of being semi-glazed over all the time.

Re: Dawkins and people's opinions of him: Someone alluded to Kevin Myers' opinion switch of him earlier (once a huge critic, after meeting the man in person he grew to like him). Something similar happened with my mother. She had a very negative opinion of Dawkins before seeing him on the Late Late. She ended up being quite impressed by his calm mannerisms and gave him the benefit of the doubt. She's still no atheist by any means,but gets where he's coming from now and is willing to give him the time of day.

Shenshen

The Mustard wrote: »

WRT Dawkins, it was a reference to his abrasive, condescending style.

Abrasive, I can agree with. He doesn't beat around the bush to protect people's feelings.
Condescending I would have to disagree with. In most debates I've seen him in as well as in his books, I find he takes a very Socratic approach : He asks questions, mostly in the hope the listener/reader will figure out the answers for themselves.
I've never seen or heard him be impolite or condescending to anyone.

Pat Mustard

I trawled through youtube last night, looking for some clips from Dawkins's tv show from last year or the year before. I haven't found any good examples to back up my assertions so far.

Slightly off topic, but in my search, I came across this: Dawkins is on Aussie tv show Q&A, and one of the other guests is a strangely coy young-earth creationist politician. Gave me a laugh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhhEeI3K7GU

Full show episode here. I've only watched some of it, and it's not bad.

robindch

The Mustard wrote: »

I've only watched some of it, and it's not bad.

^^^ Contains this facepalm-moment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSo4zjTbokY

Pat Mustard

robindch wrote: »

^^^ Contains this facepalm-moment:

The same guy made a few dodgy comments about the Jews as well.

robindch

The Mustard wrote: »

The same guy made a few dodgy comments about the Jews as well.

Mr Pell has also come out as a global-warming denialist and has said that he does not want the Australian government to force confessor priests to reveal what they heard from pedophile priests in the confession box.

Popette, btw, invited Mr Pell to her house when he was in Ireland last year, but he didn't show up, or to my knowledge, even reply to her offer.

Sarky

I reckon he thought Popette was too hardcore. :pac:

[Jackass]

OP, to answer your question, I dislike the fact that my non-belief in any form of belief has to be given a name, such as "Athiest".

However, I do not care what anyone believes. I have zero interest in what peoples beliefs are and certainly have no interest in trying to unconvert people...

Live and let live...

The only time I would enter into a religious debate is when archaic, frankly madness, global decision making is made based on religion...

For example stem cell research, the potential is unlimited, but being blocked by what in my eyes are conservative nut jobs, I think it is fine to have your life dictated to you by your religion if you so choose, but not to dictate to others who have no interest in your religion, just because your religion says it's wrong.

Stem Cell research is playing God? Then don't engage in Stem Cell research. (although enjoy all the ungodly benefits it will bring).

Gay marriage is ungodly? Then don't turn gay and get married.

Assisted Suicide for terminally ill patients is ungodly? Then don't get terminally ill and request someone to end your suffering.

Abortion is ungodly? Then don't get pregnant and abort the pregnancy (although do enjoy contraception and morning after pills).

Basically, my view on it is that the only time I care about other peoples religion is when it obstrcuts me or society.

I don't have a religion, so I wish everyone well and would fight for their right to be free and believe what they want to believe and do what they want to do, but it bothers me when my world is dictated and obstructed by someone elses beliefs, that are nothing to do with me.

The above issues and religion are as insane to me as someone believing in a flying spaghetti monster in the sky, therefore we aren't allowed eat meat balls any more...it is just insane and bothersome. Want to worry about a spaghetti monster in the sky and don't want to anger it? Then don't eat meatballs, but why should I have to stop too?