Athiests - Who cares

Zubeneschamali

Corbin Silly Pan wrote: »

You should head to mass some Sunday you will find an awful lot more people going than atheists would like to admit and also lots of young people and young adults.

I was actually at a Mass there on Saturday evening at my old parish church, and was not surprised to find myself one of the youngest there (at 50).

Attendance was about 10% of what it used to be when I was a kid.

Baggy Trousers

Ismael Freezing Tv wrote: »

You should head to mass some Sunday you will find an awful lot more people going than atheists would like to admit and also lots of young people and young adults.

I know it's a day that a lot of non-regular mass goers attend (that said a large percentage I would know as regulars) but still Christmas Eve mass in my local church this year was the busiest that even my parents can remember never mind me and they would remember when absolutely everybody attended mass.

Mass attendance dipped a few years ago but numbers are increasing again you can see it every Sunday.

You've been throwing this dodgy line out a few times since Xmas Ismael Freezing Tv - have you a point?
Like do you think the Ryan Report and Murphy Report and Ferns Report and Cloyne Report and 800 Tuam babies have been good for church attendances?

TwoShedsJackson

kneemos wrote: »

Ah I proved the existence of God earlier on in the thread.
I think my work here is done.

If your 'proof' was that whole 'someone did something because they believe in God, therefore God is real' thing, you have definitely not proved the existence of God.

Baggy Trousers

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

If your 'proof' was that whole 'someone did something because they believe in God, therefore God is real' thing, you have definitely not proved the existence of God.

It does prove extreme gullibility.

seamus

Steve Jobs ate a specific diet because he believed that diet would cure his cancer. Therefore that diet does cure cancer. Because if it didn't cure cancer, then he wouldn't have eaten it. Jobs died from...uh...an unrelated complicated.

That's how idiotic the "if you do something because of a belief, that belief must be right" thinking is.

kneemos

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

If your 'proof' was that whole 'someone did something because they believe in God, therefore God is real' thing, you have definitely not proved the existence of God.

Scientifically speaking you can't have a reaction without cause.
I know God may or may not exist,but if someone believes then he exists.

Baggy Trousers

kneemos wrote: »

Scientifically speaking you can't have a reaction without cause.
I know God may or may not exist,but if someone believes then he exists.

You must be joking.

mickydoomsux

kneemos wrote: »

but if someone believes then he exists.

No.

That's not how reality works.

drumswan

kneemos wrote: »

Scientifically speaking you can't have a reaction without cause.
I know God may or may not exist,but if someone believes then he exists.

If this is trolling its pretty decent by Boards standards

kylith

kneemos wrote: »

Scientifically speaking you can't have a reaction without cause.
I know God may or may not exist,but if someone believes then he exists.

So, fairies, the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, werewolves, and an honest politician all exist then?

Peist2007

Corbin Silly Pan wrote: »

You should head to mass some Sunday you will find an awful lot more people going than atheists would like to admit and also lots of young people and young adults.

I know it's a day that a lot of non-regular mass goers attend (that said a large percentage I would know as regulars) but still Christmas Eve mass in my local church this year was the busiest that even my parents can remember never mind me and they would remember when absolutely everybody attended mass.

Mass attendance dipped a few years ago but numbers are increasing again you can see it every Sunday.

Mass numbers ever decreasing in my home town. Has been spoken at local meetings. But keep seeing what you want to see. It will be people like yourself who will be saying mass in 20 years

Baggy Trousers

I forgot what we were discussing so I went back to the first page and kneemos opened his argument with this doozy;

Atheism is flawed logic as it rules out the possibility of the unexplained and as any scientist will tell you their whole life is devoted to the unexplained.

I think we have come full circle and it is time to close the thread.

Until the next time....

Peist2007

kneemos wrote: »

Scientifically speaking you can't have a reaction without cause.
I know God may or may not exist,but if someone believes then he exists.

Someone believing in God does not mean he exists. Seriously

AudreyHepburn

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

I can read above what you replied to, just admit that you are wrong in this instance.

Why would I admit to being wrong when I don't believe I am?

No-one knows for certain whether God/Allah/Yahweh etc exists for not and we won't until we die.

Until then the best anyone can say is what they do or not believe or what their opinions on the matter are.

And beliefs and opinions are not the same as facts.

AudreyHepburn

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I didn't say I can prove who is right, but it is easy to prove most people are wrong.

If it were that easy than the atheist v theist argument would have ended a long time ago.

TwoShedsJackson

kneemos wrote: »

Scientifically speaking you can't have a reaction without cause.
I know God may or may not exist,but if someone believes then he exists.

But you can have a thought without logic or proof to back it up. Someone believing in God is not a reaction, it is a thought.

You're not speaking even slightly scientifically here.

kneemos

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Why would I admit to being wrong when I don't believe I am?

No-one knows for certain whether God/Allah/Yahweh etc exists for not and we won't until we die.

Until then the best anyone can say is what they do or not believe or what their opinions on the matter are.

And beliefs and opinions are not the same as facts.

If my belief causes me to do a good deed or not have sex with my neighbours wife then my belief becomes a fact .

Baggy Trousers

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

You've been throwing this dodgy line out a few times since Xmas Ismael Freezing Tv - have you a point?
Like do you think the Ryan Report and Murphy Report and Ferns Report and Cloyne Report and 800 Tuam babies have been good for church attendances?

They don't have any effect really on genuine mass goers as the crimes of a few are not taken out on the entire church.

Peist2007 wrote: »

Mass numbers ever decreasing in my home town. Has been spoken at local meetings. But keep seeing what you want to see. It will be people like yourself who will be saying mass in 20 years

Most Sunday masses I attend churches are over 3/4 full with only seats near the front free. City masses tend not to be as full due to more churches etc but country masses in my local churches usually have big attendances on normal sundays.

shruikan2553

kneemos wrote: »

If my belief causes me to do a good deed or not have sex with my neighbours wife then my belief becomes a fact .

I believe a cat is a dog. I can go around acting like the cat is a dog but it does not make the cat a dog.

kneemos

shruikan2553 wrote: »

I believe a cat is a dog. I can go around acting like the cat is a dog but it does not make the cat a dog.

Your belief would be real.

TwoShedsJackson

kneemos wrote: »

If my belief causes me to do a good deed or not have sex with my neighbours wife then my belief becomes a fact .

No, it remains your belief. The fact is that you believe in something, which has no bearing on whether or not that something is true.

Corbin Silly Pan wrote: »

They don't have any effect really on genuine mass goers as the crimes of a few are not taken out on the entire church.

Most Sunday masses I attend churches are over 3/4 full with only seats near the front free. City masses tend not to be as full due to more churches etc but country masses in my local churches usually have big attendances on normal sundays.

Anecdotes of what's happening in one rural church mean little to nothing and certainly aren't a sign that the Church is 'recovering'. Rural churches usually have an older, more conservative demographic who are more likely to be Mass-goers.

TwoShedsJackson

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Anecdotes of what's happening in one rural church mean little to nothing and certainly aren't a sign that the Church is 'recovering'. Rural churches usually have an older, more conservative demographic who are more likely to be Mass-goers.

I attend both city and rural churches and in difference cities depending on the weekend and their is quite a number of young people in the 20 to 40 age bracket who attend mass, I can guarantee it would surprise many here.

TwoShedsJackson

Corbin Silly Pan wrote: »

I attend both city and rural churches and in difference cities depending on the weekend and their is quite a number of young people in the 20 to 40 age bracket who attend mass, I can guarantee it would surprise many here.

Maybe so, but Mass attendance has been in decline since what, the 80s?

o1s1n

kneemos wrote: »

If my belief causes me to do a good deed or not have sex with my neighbours wife then my belief becomes a fact .

No it doesn't.

It means your belief has caused you to act in a positive way. It doesn't say anything about your belief itself being factual or not.

shruikan2553

kneemos wrote: »

Your belief would be real.

Exactly. To act on a belief would suggest that you actually believe it (treating a cat like a dog suggest that I do think it is a dog) but it does not mean that the belief itself is factual. (the cat obviously isnt a dog)

To do this again but with a different belief
Exactly. To act on a belief would suggest that you actually believe it (Going to mass, praying or killing people in his name suggests I believe in god) but it does not mean that the belief itself is factual. (they have faith god exists, not know for a fact)


A belief can be real in that the person does believe it.
A belief isnt automatically right.

kneemos

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Exactly. To act on a belief would suggest that you actually believe it (treating a cat like a dog suggest that I do think it is a dog) but it does not mean that the belief itself is factual. (the cat obviously isnt a dog)

To do this again but with a different belief
Exactly. To act on a belief would suggest that you actually believe it (Going to mass, praying or killing people in his name suggests I believe in god) but it does not mean that the belief itself is factual. (they have faith god exists, not know for a fact)


A belief can be real in that the person does believe it.
A belief isnt automatically right.

If I believe the cat is a dog then to me the cat is a dog...belief becomes real.

PopePalpatine

I feel so awared on right now.

One eyed Jack

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Anecdotes of what's happening in one rural church mean little to nothing and certainly aren't a sign that the Church is 'recovering'. Rural churches usually have an older, more conservative demographic who are more likely to be Mass-goers.

You're trying to contradict an individual anecdote with a sweeping generalisation?

One logical fallacy is as bad as the other.

I'm perfectly willing to accept the evidence provided by the Central Statistics Office. Are you?

TwoShedsJackson

kneemos wrote: »

If I believe the cat is a dog then to me the cat is a dog...belief becomes real.

What about reality itself, the fact that the cat is not a dog?

kylith

Corbin Silly Pan wrote: »

I attend both city and rural churches and in difference cities depending on the weekend and their is quite a number of young people in the 20 to 40 age bracket who attend mass, I can guarantee it would surprise many here.

I would suspect it may tie in with immigration, or at least members of my family have talked of there being many Eastern Europeans in their church.

o1s1n wrote: »

No it doesn't.

It means your belief has caused you to act in a positive way. It doesn't say anything about your belief itself being factual or not.

And, of course, a belief can just as easily influence you to behave in a negative way.

shruikan2553

kneemos wrote: »

If I believe the cat is a dog then to me the cat is a dog...belief becomes real.

What do we do if someone believe a cat is a cat and not a dog?

One person thinks the cat is a dog, the other thinks the cat is a cat. They cant both be right.

kneemos

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

What about reality itself, the fact that the cat is not a dog?

The cat is not a dog but by my belief and actions I have made the cat become a dog.
If I converted say 90% of the population to my belief then the cat would be by any definition a dog.

kylith

kylith wrote: »

I would suspect it may tie in with immigration, or at least members of my family have talked of there being many Eastern Europeans in their church.

.

The numbers of Eastern Europeans living in the rural area I am from is tiny, I'm not sure of the top of my head if I know of any attending mass in any of the three local churches (though there may be a small number).

The city I don't know as I wouldn't know the people very well, judging by the voices outside the church most are Irish.

Rough Sleeper

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're trying to contradict an individual anecdote with a sweeping generalisation?

One logical fallacy is as bad as the other.

I'm perfectly willing to accept the evidence provided by the Central Statistics Office. Are you?

Have the CSO released any statistics on mass attendance in recent years?

RobbieTheRobber

kneemos wrote: »

The cat is not a dog but by my belief and actions I have made the cat become a dog.
If I converted say 90% of the population to my belief then the cat would be by any definition a dog.

No the cat remains a cat. Your perception has no impact on reality none. A wall does not change to a door merely because I believe it to be a door.
:rolleyes:

You may change the meaning of a word but your cat is still a cat but by a different name and my wall is still a wall.

o1s1n

kneemos wrote: »

The cat is not a dog but by my belief and actions I have made the cat become a dog.
If I converted say 90% of the population to my belief then the cat would be by any definition a dog.

So I take it you'd have no issue with me 'believing' that the big, sharp stone in my hand is a fluffy light tennis ball and throwing it at you?

That's the difference between 'belief' and 'fact'. You can 'believe' it's a tennis ball all you want, fact will still leave you bloody after a sharp stone hit you in the face.


/edit - I am not advocating stoning the religious :pac:, just thought it was a pretty illustrative way of putting it.

One eyed Jack

Rough Sleeper wrote: »

Have the CSO released an statistics on mass attendance in recent years?

No, they haven't, but the figures they have released show that 82% of the Irish population identify themselves as Roman Catholic.

Interesting article here -

In the 2011 census, a total of 3,861,335 people, 81.4 per cent of the population, declared themselves as Catholic, a 4.9 per cent increase since the 2006 census, when 3,681,446 people identified themselves as such. Yet, regarding this increase, the Central Statistics Office (CSO) stated, “that while the number of Catholics overall increased by 179,889, or 4.9 per cent, since 2006 much of this increase came from the non-Irish (mostly European) national community.” On the other hand, those identifying as having no religion increased by 45 per cent, up from 186,318 in 2006, to 269,811 in 2011. When broken down further in a separate CSO document, 72,914 did not state their religion, or lack of, with another 3,905 and 3,521 people stating Atheist and Agnostic respectively as their religion. As anyone remotely familiar with the religious demographics of Ireland will tell you though, the number of “true Catholics” is likely to be far smaller than the 81.4 per cent noted in the 2011 census. This can be seen in a range of areas.

For example, in 2012, Red C published the results of a poll they carried out in which they asked the public whether or not “Same sex marriage should be allowed in the Constitution”. A total of 73 per cent of respondents were in favour of an amendment to the constitution that would allow same sex marriage, which is up from 56 per cent in 2008. Regarding sex before marriage, according to the Irish Times, 6 per cent of those asked in 2004/2005 said that sex before marriage was always wrong compared to 71 per cent in 1973/1974. In another survey commissioned, also in 2012, by the Association of Catholic Priests, it was found that 35 per cent of Irish people attend Mass “at least once per week”, 36 per cent attend “a few times per year”, with 27 per cent attending Mass “less often”. In contrast, 85 per cent of people in 1980 stated that they attended Mass at least once per week. On the issue of clergy, 87 per cent stated that priests should be allowed to get married, 77 per cent stated that women should be allowed to become priests, and 72 per cent stated that “mature married men should be allowed to be ordained”. Everything mentioned here is at odds with basic Church teachings that anyone who has been raised Catholic would be well aware of.

http://www.irishleftreview.org/2013/03/15/atheism-ireland-decline-catholic-church/#sthash.nscaqaGr.dpuf


So even though mass attendance has fallen, the vast majority of Irish people still identify as Roman Catholic.

I was at the Young Scientist Exhibition on Saturday just gone, and on the placards above their science projects, the vast majority of school names indicated they were religious ethos schools, yet the standard of the projects on display, across all areas of science (social and behavioural, environmental, health, agricultural, chemical, mathematical, etc) indicated that these young people were being anything but 'brainwashed' in school.

I wouldn't rely solely on individual anecdotes when gathering evidence of just how religious or non-religious people are in Ireland, and certainly I wouldn't get too hung up on attendance figures in Church. Otherwise I might be inclined to believe that Church attendance wasn't in decline at all if the attendance at the three services I attended on Sunday (Roman Catholic, Pentecostal and CoI) were anything to go by!

I'm all for Ireland becoming a secular country btw, but I don't think the will is there in society yet with the number of a-la-carte atheists we have in Ireland. In order for Ireland to become a secular country, it would take a massive social change in people's attitudes in order to force political change.

WheatenBriar

What's happened to people's ability to ignore what they don't like?
Whether you believe in a God or not it's just that a belief and you are either accepting of that theory or you are not what more about it?

Isn't it much simpler to weave your way around the practicalities of other people's beliefs than to be constantly worried about them?
I mean,when you die,if there's another level we enter,in we go and onwards and upwards,that's my philosophy and I'm sticking to it

The trouble with religions is they are controlled by humans so are bound to have multiple flaws,just like humans of no religion or belief have flaws

It always amuses me too listening to argument about for example the Paris killers being an example of beliefs in God being bad,they're not,they are just another case of a lunatic cult
No modern official popular established religion evokes murder afaik
Death cults do

kylith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, they haven't, but the figures they have released show that 82% of the Irish population identify themselves as Roman Catholic.

If I remember the figures correctly; of that 82% about 35% attend mass. Of that 35% about 10% don't believe in a god.

I think that the census question should be changed to 'What religion are you a practising member of, if any", and that the results in the census are swayed by forms being filled out by Mammys, and people who think that because they were baptised they still have to put down Catholic even though they haven't attended mass since their confirmation.

I know that the census results are what people self identify as, but that's the burning question, isn't it? If you don't go to mass, think that the papacy are a shower of pederast-enabling bastards, reject catholic teaching on everything from homosexuality to the afterlife, and don't believe in a god regardless of what you call yourself are you actually a Catholic.

orubiru

kneemos wrote: »

The cat is not a dog but by my belief and actions I have made the cat become a dog.
If I converted say 90% of the population to my belief then the cat would be by any definition a dog.

Hm... yes and no, really.

You cannot physically make a cat become a dog.

What you are talking about is changing the definition of "cat" to the point where that definition matches the definition of "dog". It's an interesting idea but it can only work in certain circumstances, like in philosophical discussions.

In a real life setting such "belief" could be dangerous. Fatal, even.

Let's say I have a 500ml container of water here and a 500ml container of hydrochloric acid. Both are labelled. Now you come in with your plan. Through your belief and actions... you change acid to water. Just as your cat became a dog... the acid has become water...

Wow, you've convinced me too and so I change the label on the acid... to "water".

Now, we have 2 containers of water. Good job you.

Here come your children now. Hi Kids...

"Daddy-Kneemos / Mummy-Kneemos! We are thristy! Really really thirsty, we didn't drink since this morning!"

Are you REALLY gonna say "Sure, have a drink of water!"?

o1s1n

orubiru wrote: »

Are you REALLY gonna say "Sure, have a drink of water!"?

The thing is, if someone really believed in it, they probably would.

It's why we see religious folks doing all manner of crazy things that go against logic, like refusing to accept blood transfusions/refusing medicine outright etc.

Philo Beddoe

o1s1n wrote: »

The thing is, if someone really believed in it, they probably would.

It's why we see religious folks doing all manner of crazy things that go against logic, like refusing to accept blood transfusions/refusing medicine outright etc.

Or fly planes into buildings.

Zubeneschamali

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

No-one knows for certain whether God/Allah/Yahweh etc exists for not and we won't until we die.

In the same pedantic sense, you don't know for certain that jumping off a tall building will kill you - maybe angels will catch you.

It's not the way to bet, though.

One eyed Jack

kylith wrote: »

If I remember the figures correctly; of that 82% about 35% attend mass. Of that 35% about 10% don't believe in a god.

Correct, and that's why I would identify them as a-la-carte atheist, because even though they identify as Roman Catholic, the fact they are absent of belief in a deity is the very essence of atheism!

I think that the census question should be changed to 'What religion are you a practising member of, if any"

You'd still get the same answers as the question still leaves enough room for people to say they're a practising member of a particular religion. You may be of the opinion that they're not a practising member of whatever religion they identify with, but they're the person filling out the form and speaking for themselves.

and that the results in the census are swayed by forms being filled out by Mammys, and people who think that because they were baptised they still have to put down Catholic even though they haven't attended mass since their confirmation.

Well you could claim that, but in order to state it as fact, you'd require evidence. I mean, this is the thing with people's biases - you're perfectly willing to accept the mass attendance and lack of belief statistics, but when presented with statistics that contradict your perception - "ah they had mammy fill out the form", "they're not practising their religion", etc. You're making claims you believe to be true, despite the fact that you have no evidence to support those claims.

FWIW, I share your cynicism with regard to the census figures, but our personal feelings don't make one iota of a difference when the census figures are what the Government and the various State agencies use to formulate public policy. I was just as pissed off as anyone else who was disappointed that non-religious* people still felt the need to fill out Roman Catholic on the census as it means that Ireland took two steps back from a secular education system among other things.

I know that the census results are what people self identify as, but that's the burning question, isn't it? If you don't go to mass, think that the papacy are a shower of pederast-enabling bastards, reject catholic teaching on everything from homosexuality to the afterlife, and don't believe in a god regardless of what you call yourself are you actually a Catholic.

Well whatever a person identifies themselves as, I'm not going to contradict them. I'm Roman Catholic myself, but there's plenty I don't agree with the Church on, but I would sooner work within the Church to reform the Church. I know there are many people within the Church who feel the same way I do, and it's not like the Roman Catholic Church is incapable of change - it's constantly evolving. It just does so very slowly. I believe it's not for me or anyone else to judge the veracity of other people's beliefs or their lack of belief, and I'm not about to go throwing stones in glass houses.

I believe that people should be entitled to identify as they wish when it comes to something as personal as their personal beliefs. I can only lead by example when I choose not to impose my personal beliefs on other people, but it's an unfortunate reality that we all have to deal with the fact that other people don't think the same way we do.


*The reason I used the term "non-religious" as opposed to "atheist" in this instance is because I often meet people who identify as "non-religious", but they seem to have an aversion almost to using the term "atheist" as if it carries negative connotations. I can understand why they'd avoid using the term myself, because in my opinion - Atheism has gotten a bad rap in the last couple of decades, partly due to some of it's more prominent publicity seekers who have run what I would consider a disastrous PR campaign. Meanwhile you have Frankie (Ratzinger was an awful hardliner) playing a PR storm with the "softly softly" approach that's far more appealing to the masses than the anti-theist negativity promoted by people like Richard Dawkins.

Peist2007

kneemos wrote: »

If my belief causes me to do a good deed or not have sex with my neighbours wife then my belief becomes a fact .

If you arent trolling then that is one of the most stupid things i have ever read.

Peist2007

Imagine the argument for God is now "I think he exists, therefore he does". :pac:

kneemos

Peist2007 wrote: »

Imagine the argument for God is now "I think he exists, therefore he does". :pac:

I think I exist.

atheist

I find the atheist moniker convenient for distribution lists, as don't get approaches by evangelists.

Peist2007

kneemos wrote: »

I think I exist.

And your mother doesnt have to read a book, close her eyes and will you to be there.

AudreyHepburn

kneemos wrote: »

If my belief causes me to do a good deed or not have sex with my neighbours wife then my belief becomes a fact .

That you have that belief is a fact. But the belief itself is not a fact.