Largest church in Ireland to be demolished, replacement one tenth of the size.

pauldla

realdanbreen wrote: »

pauldla wrote: »

I am to be called a not-real atheist, then? What are the tenets of this not-real atheism?

I suppose you could call yourself a fine day atheist. In other words 'I wouldn't darken the door of a church!.....(unless of course aunty margaret or the wifes parents, the neighbours, etc etc might be offended if I didn't go to some services)

So, not-real atheists are those with no religious beliefs who attend religious services due to perceived family or social obligation?

magicbastarder

for someone who seems to hate 'fake' atheists, i'd have expected you'd also hate the baptismal rule for NS entry, as it results in a load of fake catholics being created.

realdanbreen

pauldla wrote: »

So, not-real atheists are those with no religious beliefs who attend religious services due to perceived family or social obligation?

Also they would have an almost obsessive interest in church matters, numbers attending services etc, whereas an Atheist have no interest in anything to do with religion.

realdanbreen

magicbastarder wrote: »

for someone who seems to hate 'fake' atheists, i'd have expected you'd also hate the baptismal rule for NS entry, as it results in a load of fake catholics being created.

fortunately 'hate' is something I rarely feel about anything. But I do dislike hypocracy from whatever quarter it comes from.

pauldla

realdanbreen wrote: »

pauldla wrote: »

So, not-real atheists are those with no religious beliefs who attend religious services due to perceived family or social obligation?

Also they would have an almost obsessive interest in church matters, numbers attending services etc, whereas an Atheist have no interest in anything to do with religion.

So, if one attends service while not believing, but doesn't have a certain level of interest in church matters, one is not a not-real atheist, and can be called atheist? Similarly, if one has a prescribed level of interest in church matters etc but does not attend services, one is also not a not-real atheist and can be called an atheist?

I really must wonder if you've thought this through.

Zubeneschamali

realdanbreen wrote: »

In other words 'I wouldn't darken the door of a church!.....(unless of course aunty margaret or the wifes parents, the neighbours, etc etc might be offended if I didn't go to some services)

I wouldn't ordinarily darken the door of a McDonalds either, but if I'm with my sister-in-law and she has my nephew with her, I'd go in with them. The coffee is actually OK these days.

HensVassal

realdanbreen wrote: »

Without me rabbitting on about it the gist of it is that a real atheist would never set foot in a church, temple or any religious building and those people I respect. Then you have the 'look at me the atheist' type who go to church several times a year in case not doing so would offend aunty margaret or 'heaven forbid' the wifes parents! Funeral respects can be paid at the funeral home and weddings can be celebrated at the wedding reception and that is what real atheists do.

I visit churches and cathedrals because I like the architecture and the silence. But I always come away feeling a bit depressed that so much effort went into something so pointless and head to a pub to see if I can chat up some tarty little Wiccan minx.

magicbastarder

speaking of hypocrisy, how many 'real' catholics who do bend the knee at mass actually believe all the tenets of the church, and refuse to use contraception, eat red meat on fridays, etc. etc.?

realdanbreen

magicbastarder wrote: »

speaking of hypocrisy, how many 'real' catholics who do bend the knee at mass actually believe all the tenets of the church, and refuse to use contraception, eat red meat on fridays, etc. etc.?

Like I say I dislike hypocracy and people pleaseing no matter where it comes from. As for 'eating red meat' ? You must have been around in the 60's I guess.

newacc2015

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

dar100 wrote: »

What utter BS!!

What else would one expect from a person of the classes?

Ballymun subsequently built another 3 churches in the area, if you count Our Ladies of Victory, one of the biggest in Dublin, that makes 4!! All of which have little attendance

Perhaps the "middle class" as you call them, provide more money in collections!! This does not equal more people attending mass, just more disposable income

I dont know why you are so salty about this. There stats on this and working class areas on average have a mass attendance rate of 2-3%. It is up in the mid 30s for middle class Dubliners. This is not my opinion, but hard facts.

So are you saying an independent survey massaged the figures to imply middle classes Dubliners donate more in church? It makes zero sense.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/mass-attendance-in-dublin-to-drop-by-one-third-by-2030-1.2504351

When Ballymun was built, the residents were not really allowed to go into other areas. DCC built a ton of walls to keep the residents of Ballymun separate from other areas. The Gardai used to challenge Ballymun residents going into Glasnevin. The residents of Ballymun, would not have used Our Lady of Victory. Ballymun has two churches in it. The residents would not have been using Our Lady of Victory. Our Lady of Victory would have poor mass attendance due to the fact a lot of the area is students, who go home at the weekend.

FYI 'classes' in this country refers to the breakdown of someone by skill and education. I don't think you seem to realise that and seem to think me referencing classes is somewhat elitist. When in fact is relevant to this discussion as working class area tend to have very poor mass attendance to middle class areas.

If you have an issue with breaking areas done by class, my suggestion is dont read anything from the CSO, as you might have a stroke!

realdanbreen

pauldla wrote: »

So, if one attends service while not believing, but doesn't have a certain level of interest in church matters, one is not a not-real atheist, and can be called atheist? Similarly, if one has a prescribed level of interest in church matters etc but does not attend services, one is also not a not-real atheist and can be called an atheist?

I really must wonder if you've thought this through.

Have another read of your post paul! and you think I haven't thought it through!

realdanbreen

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I wouldn't ordinarily darken the door of a McDonalds either, but if I'm with my sister-in-law and she has my nephew with her, I'd go in with them. The coffee is actually OK these days.

Lovely little story.............but what's it got to do with anything?

HensVassal

realdanbreen wrote: »

I'm pretty sure you know that I am referring to going into church to attend religious services.

There is a difference between going into a church and attending a religious service.

One can go into a hospital and not be in need of medical assistance.

magicbastarder

realdanbreen wrote: »

As for 'eating red meat' ? You must have been around in the 60's I guess.

well, the church certainly was.

realdanbreen

HensVassal wrote: »

There is a difference between going into a church and attending a religious service.

One can go into a hospital and not be in need of medical assistance.

I think we kinda figured that out a while back.

HensVassal

realdanbreen wrote: »

Also they would have an almost obsessive interest in church matters, numbers attending services etc, whereas an Atheist have no interest in anything to do with religion.

Hate to burst your bubble pal but you can't be a partial atheist. You either believe in this God caper or you don't. I don't believe iron can be turned into gold. Why? Because it can't. It's not possible. I would be what you might call an anti-alchemist. I can't possibly be a believer in this fantasy on a few rare occasions thus dubbing me a "non-real anti-alchemist" like your "non-real atheists"

As a scientist I know time travel is not possible. But if I go into a cinema and watch "Back To the Future" are you going to condescend to calling me not a "real scientist"?

Zubeneschamali

realdanbreen wrote: »

Lovely little story.............but what's it got to do with anything?

I wouldn't normally "darken the door" of the Good Shepherd in Churchtown (it isn't architecturally interesting being a just a 50s blimp hangar) but if someone invites me to an event like a christening, funeral, wedding etc then I will go along. The music was not bad last time I was there.

I have also attended Church of Ireland and Church of England ceremonies, and even a Hindu ceremony once. None of these events caused the Evil Atheist Conspiracy to tear up my membership card.

Zubeneschamali

magicbastarder wrote: »

well, the church certainly was.

God was quite a bit stricter when I was a lad, he seems to have chilled out since.

HensVassal

realdanbreen wrote: »

I think we kinda figured that out a while back.

Well, likewise an atheist can go into a church or synagogue or temple and still not believe a thing about supreme beings, paranormal activity or an afterlife.

And you say you dislike hypocrisy.

You maintained that if an atheist went into a place of worship then they were not a "real" atheist. When the stupidity of this position was pointed out to you you hit back with some snarky oneliner.

ThisRegard

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Arguably they became more 'churched' once they did. The RCC put massive efforts and strained its resources in the 70s to ensure the new suburbs like Tallaght got plenty of churches..

Pretty much every estate in Tallaght got its own church, right into the 80s. And there's no issues of closures there, the churches are a more realistic size, albeit still relatively empty.

realdanbreen

HensVassal wrote: »

Well, likewise an atheist can go into a church or synagogue or temple and still not believe a thing about supreme beings, paranormal activity or an afterlife.

And you say you dislike hypocrisy.

You maintained that if an atheist went into a place of worship then they were not a "real" atheist. When the stupidity of this position was pointed out to you you hit back with some snarky oneliner.

No, I maintained that a real atheist would not attend church SERVICES. I'm surprised that a scientist like yourself would not see the hypocrisy of it.

Zubeneschamali

realdanbreen wrote: »

No, I maintained that a real atheist would not attend church SERVICES.

Not only do I sometimes attend services, I find I still remember the words of some of the sing-along bits.

I don't see how a "real" atheist doing so is a hypocrite.

magicbastarder

well, they're confusing god, who doesn't know whose prayers to listen to anymore.

nozzferrahhtoo

realdanbreen wrote: »

Why do you think that is great to see?

That the business model of pedaling lies and/or fantasy as true for profit is no longer pulling in the numbers? Why would that not be great to see?

realdanbreen wrote: »

True, although my question was not for you it was for stevecw.

Welcome to public internet forums, where all conversation is done in groups For one on one conversations you can refer yourself to the Private Messaging system which is perfectly functional.

Outside of there though, you can safely assume any question asked is asked of EVERYONE present, not the person you may have happened to direct it at.

realdanbreen wrote: »

The real atheists that I know have no belief in God and no belief in religion and certainly no interest one way or the other in the numbers attending church services.

Well if you contrive to define "real atheists" as those that " have no belief in God and no belief in religion and certainly no interest one way or the other in the numbers attending church services" then for sure all the "real atheists" you know will "have no belief in God and no belief in religion and certainly no interest one way or the other in the numbers attending church services".

Sort of a given, is it not?

realdanbreen wrote: »

Without me rabbitting on about it the gist of it is that a real atheist would never set foot in a church, temple or any religious building and those people I respect.

realdanbreen wrote: »

Why would an athesis 'walk into church' ?

The people I respect are the ones who do not let their own personal views to get in the way of sharing important occasions with their loved ones.

I would therefore, for example, happily go into a church to attend a friends wedding, or the baptism of their children. My presence there is in no contradiction to any world views I hold.

Putting money in the baskets they send around during such ceremonies might however, which is why I don't.

I have gone into church to collect crackers for scientific purposes too as it happens. Unfortunately they only tend to hand them out to those who attend religious services so it was something of a requirement at the time.

And I have gone in to look at particularly well made windows and statues and paintings.

And that is just ME. There is likely any number of others reasons why other people go into churches without any conflict of their world views. So what you feel the issue actually is.... is not clear to me. And, I suspect from reading your posts..... to you either.

There is also a "know your enemy" kind of thing. I can attend talks and conferences and speeches by politicians I have no intention of voting for.... for the same reason I can attend religious services. That is, to say, to educate myself on what they are actually espousing and claiming and saying. Why would a "real atheist" (definition still forthcoming I assume) find it a contradiction to remain informed on such things?

realdanbreen wrote: »

Also they would have an almost obsessive interest in church matters, numbers attending services etc, whereas an Atheist have no interest in anything to do with religion.

Because it is not the god in question or the religion that has an effect on our lives, but some of the people who espouse belief in it's existence.

I would like to never have another discussion in this world about religions or gods, and leave peoples private faith to them privately.

I am not let.

ALL the areas of interest I have......... education, science, medicine, medical and bodily autonomy, politics, sexuality and much more are areas of discourse punctuated heavily by people pushing agendas that SOLELY exist on a basis assuming the existence of a god.

So demanding substantiation that this god even exists, or concerning myself with religion, becomes a necessity, not a desire. But these people consistently refuse to provide any. Like yourself for example.

And imagine how ridiculous that is in any other context. Imagine I walked into our halls of education or power and started making policy demands based on a sheet full of statistics I had in my hand. Imagine that I was wary of letting you read the sheet however, showing you only bits of it........... and I abjectly REFUSED in anyway to tell you anything about the source of the data on that page. Not who compiled it, how, or by what methodology. I merely demanded that you take my word for it that the statistics are sound, and that you should act upon them.

THAT is essentially the level of discourse we face from many in our halls of education and power. And THAT is essentially why we not only do, but MUST, demand they substantiate their claims or leave the field. The MOMENT you understand why you would demand background and substantiation for the page of statistics.... is the same moment you will understand why we unconvinced by the existence of a non-human intelligent creator of the universe do too.

And it has nothing to do with your arbitrary and vague definition of "real" atheism.

realdanbreen wrote: »

No, I maintained that a real atheist would not attend church SERVICES. I'm surprised that a scientist like yourself would not see the hypocrisy of it.

No reason to be surprised. It is consistent entirely as scientists, like atheists, do tend to not see things that are not actually there. Which I can not say about you and many theists.

Pherekydes

realdanbreen wrote: »

No, I maintained that a real atheist would not attend church SERVICES. I'm surprised that a scientist like yourself would not see the hypocrisy of it.

You are ascribing a meaning to the word that's entirely your own.

Atheist = does not believe in a god

That is all.

Defenders of the church, like yourself, are trying to prescribe a behavior to atheists that isn't necessary in order to separate them and isolate them out from church adherents.

When a child is being baptized her parents want their family and friends around them even if said family or friends are atheist.

When a couple are getting married they want their family and friends present to witness the wedding. That's what's important, not the beliefs or lack of beliefs held by those present.

Funerals: I'll leave it as an exercise. Use the words 'support', 'comfort', 'family', 'friends' and 'beliefs or lack of' in your answer.

Christians! :rolleyes:

recedite

magicbastarder wrote: »

an aside, the crypt tour under st peter's was one of the best things i've ever done on holidays. largely because of the history obsessed american priest who led the tour.

Is this it? The Necropolis. Very cool name. I was in St Peters, but I didn't know it was possible to go below ground there.
I did the tour of the catacombs just outside the old city, where the corpses of the original Roman Christians are still waiting there on shelves to be re-animated, which is what they believed would literally happen.

Also there is this very peculiar building packed "artistically" with skulls in Rome city centre. I was fascinated by it.

Easier to reach, in Dublin, is the crusader crypt/tomb in St Michan's church. Well worth a visit if anybody has not been there yet.

HensVassal

realdanbreen wrote: »

No, I maintained that a real atheist would not attend church SERVICES. I'm surprised that a scientist like yourself would not see the hypocrisy of it.

No you did not. You never mentioned an atheist attending church SERVICES.

Here are some quotes from you

realdanbreen wrote:

The real atheists that I know have no belief in God and no belief in religion and certainly no interest one way or the other in the numbers attending church services.

There you simply expressed that whatever atheists you know would have no interest in the numbers attending services. There's no mention by you of atheists themselves attending church services. So it sounds to me like you're back-peddling.

Here's what you did say regarding atheists going into a church:

realdanbreen wrote:

Without me rabbitting on about it the gist of it is that a real atheist would never set foot in a church, temple or any religious building and those people I respect. Then you have the 'look at me the atheist' type who go to church several times a year in case not doing so would offend aunty margaret or 'heaven forbid' the wifes parents! Funeral respects can be paid at the funeral home and weddings can be celebrated at the wedding reception and that is what real atheists do.

So you maintained that an atheist would never go into a church, at least no self-respecting atheist, a "real" atheist, to use your phrase. Now you're trying to deflect away from that by saying that you said that no atheist would attend church services....which of course you didn't say.

You also asked:

realdanbreen wrote:

Why would an athesis 'walk into church' ?

This is just baffling. There are many atheists who love art, engineering and architecture. Are you saying they can't go into the Sistine Chapel to see the ceiling? The can't climb to the top of the Sacre Coeur to see the view of Paris? The can't admire the masonry, buttresses and gargoyles of the Kolner Dom?

As for your talk about not going to a wedding or funeral or christening if it's in a church and going to the after bash instead.....that's just plain rude. It would be akin to refusing to attend someone's graduation because you don't want to sit through the ceremony and the speeches but want the booze-up afterwards.

Qs

Dan do you also feel a catholic who enters a synagogue, mosque or even a protestant church is no longer a real catholic?

KingBrian2

Churches really do invite trouble for themselves. All the masses of the world are let in since as we know they let just about anyone in. They have no criteria for entry so it is up to the visitor to respect the Church. In terms of attendance at the Church are a lot of the people who go in really that devoted to religion i say no it is all about showing respect and that is about it. You don't have to pray in a church to be religious or have strong convictions.

KingBrian2

Qs wrote: »

Dan do you also feel a catholic who enters a synagogue, mosque or even a protestant church is no longer a real catholic?

Been to many religious places on the Continent and in Britain epic places i mean in terms or ornate design and culture. Just to see how the other half go about religion and prayer. It is nice to see.