Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Half a million Pagans in the Country.
Comments
-
I must go now and milk the goats. It has been fun chattin to all ye boardsies:)0
-
Given that the Christmas celebration derived from the Romans festival of Saturnalia, it really has nothing to do with Christ at all.
Saturnalia was celebrated in December with feasting and gift giving,
Then you have the norse festival of Yule - more feasting and the lighting of the Yule log
In fact the tree, holy, ivy and Santa all come from German, Norse and Celtic pagan traditions.
All these traditions were taken under the umbrella of Christianity in order to make it more marketable to the natives.
Certainly in non religious houses Christmas is celebrated as acultural festival0 -
I left Bavaria when you arrived
Amazing I am improving the world around me in ways I do not know about, as well as the ways I do then. Nice.A lot of posters on here want to claim it. Even if they don't subscribe to all catholic dogma they are not atheist.
But nor are they catholic, at least in some peoples eyes. To be catholic, to some people, you can not just call yourself such.... you have to actually subscribe to the beliefs. While in other peoples eyes you can just call yourself it, even if you have no idea what doctrine actually says on any given topic.
But many of them ARE atheist it seems. The same people who tick "catholic" on the census sometimes go and tick boxes saying they have no belief in a god. And that is, if nothing else, interesting. To me anyway cause I am all into social psychology and the like.
Other examples are people who claim to be devout Christians to me but then are shocked when I show them a Bible. It turns out, quite often, that not only do they not own one and have never read it.... they had not even actually ever SEEN it. And it is much bigger than they thought it was because they were fed the same few passages in school and church so they thought that was all there was.
Is that not interesting? I know if I thought there was a creator of the universe, and I believed he communicated with us through a given text (directly or indirectly) I would make a hell of a point of reading that text. Seems many so called "Christians" do not share that view.Yes extreme atheists are very aggressive. Ok not suicide bombers but very intolerant.
Are they though? It seems in the snowflake generation that any form of disagreement is "intolerant". If you openly disagree with the position or point of another person you are somehow "intolerant".
That is not what intolerant means to me. So I am not sure what you even mean when you say atheists are intolerant. I think atheists, as much as anyone else, are as prone as any human to voice their counter view to something they disagree with.
But there is that old tongue in cheek adage of "Extreme Muslims cut heads off people, Extreme Christians blow up abortion clinics or murder the doctors from them, and extreme Atheists..... write books".
Not much of a comparison to be made between them really and I think we could both guess what a survey asking people which of the three they would live beside if forced to choose would come out with.Women's reproductive rights, termination..whatever name you want to call it. You're in favour of murdering potential Einsteins, Messis, Beethovens, David Bowie's etc. It's murder of an innocent human being.
You are clearly operating under a different definition of "murder" to me then. And why when couching your rhetorical "potentials" arguments do you only cherry pick the people you like. It is as much a potential Hitler as it is a potential Einstein. But in fact it is likely nothing more than another potential nobody like the billions of the rest of us.
But I do not couch my morality and ethics in potential human beings. I couch it in human beings who actually exist in reality, not in your imagination or your whatiffery. Such as a woman who is pregnant and does not want to be. She as a real person is my ethical concern, not some thing that potentially might be one some day.
But you are point dodging now by shifting the discussion into abortion and away from the point I was actually making which is that atheists are often not so much defining themselves as being against religion, so much as the things they DO define themselves by (and being pro choice is only ONE of the many examples I just offered you) puts them in direct conflict with the religious and their unsubstantiated claims.
So their standing up against religion is not them defining themselves against religion as you imagined it, but because they do not have any choice in the matter.You and those of similar belief are full of trite statements about the possibility of a deity. 'Fairy in the Sky', 'Wishes were fishes', 'imaginary friend'.
It would probably pay you to read my posts a little closer before replying to them as I made no such "wishes were fishes" statement about the possibility of a deity. Anywhere. At all. Ever. If you think I did then please quote me directly where I did.
If you have a problem with the statements of OTHER atheists however then I would urge you to take it up with them, not me. I am not their keeper.Oh but you'll believe some scientist about a big bang.
Perhaps it would be better if you let me tell you what I believe, or would believe, rather than doing it on my behalf. I do not believe any scientist about anything. I consider and believe (or not) the evidence. The scientist is just the person who's job it is to provide that evidence. Nothing more.
What I CAN say however is that I am very well informed on what the evidence for the claim there was a Big Bang is. I am however not at all aware of ANY substantiation for the existence of a god.
That is a statement that is, I hope you will notice, entirely independent of what I actually believe or who I believe. It is merely a statement of what substantiation I have been offered.
Whether I believe there was a "big bang" or not does not change the fact that I have been shown PLENTY of evidence for the claim.
God: Not so much. Least of all by you.Regarding proof of God you can do your own research on countless verified miracles.
And there we have it once again. Every time I ask for evidence I get some kind of "Oh go find it yourself" non-reply cop out. Each. And. Every. Time. Invariably. Without. Fail.Nugent dealt with people ticking Catholic instead of non religious.
Not what I said, do keep up. I said Nugent dealt with the question of why people who do not believe in a god define themselves in opposition to something they do not believe in. Nothing about people ticking Catholic AT ALL. You seem to have lost the run of the conversation a bit.
You asked a question, and I linked you to someone who offers a good answer. Nothing more.I prefer to look to your country, Ireland.
That is what I said, yes. Again do keep up. I said by all means do the study in question. The trends in the OTHER countries I mentioned however do not bode well for your imagination of what the results may be.
And I notice you also did not give any evidence for the questions asked there too.Since my arrival 21 years ago and the demise of the catholic church the baby has been thrown out with the bathwater. Suicide rates have risen alarmingly as youth are fed nihilistic propaganda
I trust you have heard the phrase "Correlation is not causation"? If not it might be a useful one for you to consider. Suicide rates have gone up as software piracy has too as it happens. Suicide rates have gone up at the same time as the penetration of Smart Phone sales have too. Suicide rates have gone up with the number of emoticons in common usage.
Arbitrarily picking one thing (suicide rates) and then equally arbitrarily correlating it with some other thing just shows your bias. It certainly does not show one was actually caused by the other.
And what Propaganda is it you even speak of here? Can you show me what it is, who has been feeding it, to whom, and by what medium? I genuinely have no idea what propaganda you are speaking of. Nor, I suspect (hopefully erroneously) do you.To hell with Scandinavia where 100% of Down Syndrome babies are aborted. Is that what your ethics involves?
My own ethics would be that people pregnant with such a baby would have that choice. My ethics would have us live neither in a society where all of them are aborted against the will of the parents in question, or none of them are aborted because the parents are forced to bring them to term.
So no, my ethics involves many differences from what you appear to imagine. But at least you are asking me this time, rather than asserting it on my behalf like you did earlier. This is progress of a sort.Call a Muslim prophet that on here and it's sectarian or islamophobic. But you can say what you like about Christians on these cowardly forums.
Oh I dunno. The word bastard has a very particular meaning. I would be more interested in whether the term is ACCURATE or not. Not whether people should be using it at all.
But I think you are merely assuming what would happen if one insults prophets around here. I have on many occasion pointed out that said prophet was reportedly illiterate, very likely a pedophile, also very likely a cynopobe, and something of a war monger. I have not been harassed, cited, admonished, or even disagreed with for pointing out any of these things.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Amazing I am improving the world around me in ways I do not know about, as well as the ways I do then. Nice.
But nor are they catholic, at least in some peoples eyes. To be catholic, to some people, you can not just call yourself such.... you have to actually subscribe to the beliefs. While in other peoples eyes you can just call yourself it, even if you have no idea what doctrine actually says on any given topic.
But many of them ARE atheist it seems. The same people who tick "catholic" on the census sometimes go and tick boxes saying they have no belief in a god. And that is, if nothing else, interesting. To me anyway cause I am all into social psychology and the like.
Other examples are people who claim to be devout Christians to me but then are shocked when I show them a Bible. It turns out, quite often, that not only do they not own one and have never read it.... they had not even actually ever SEEN it. And it is much bigger than they thought it was because they were fed the same few passages in school and church so they thought that was all there was.
Is that not interesting? I know if I thought there was a creator of the universe, and I believed he communicated with us through a given text (directly or indirectly) I would make a hell of a point of reading that text. Seems many so called "Christians" do not share that view.
Are they though? It seems in the snowflake generation that any form of disagreement is "intolerant". If you openly disagree with the position or point of another person you are somehow "intolerant".
That is not what intolerant means to me. So I am not sure what you even mean when you say atheists are intolerant. I think atheists, as much as anyone else, are as prone as any human to voice their counter view to something they disagree with.
But there is that old tongue in cheek adage of "Extreme Muslims cut heads off people, Extreme Christians blow up abortion clinics or murder the doctors from them, and extreme Atheists..... write books".
Not much of a comparison to be made between them really and I think we could both guess what a survey asking people which of the three they would live beside if forced to choose would come out with.
You are clearly operating under a different definition of "murder" to me then. And why when couching your rhetorical "potentials" arguments do you only cherry pick the people you like. It is as much a potential Hitler as it is a potential Einstein. But in fact it is likely nothing more than another potential nobody like the billions of the rest of us.
But I do not couch my morality and ethics in potential human beings. I couch it in human beings who actually exist in reality, not in your imagination or your whatiffery. Such as a woman who is pregnant and does not want to be. She as a real person is my ethical concern, not some thing that potentially might be one some day.
But you are point dodging now by shifting the discussion into abortion and away from the point I was actually making which is that atheists are often not so much defining themselves as being against religion, so much as the things they DO define themselves by (and being pro choice is only ONE of the many examples I just offered you) puts them in direct conflict with the religious and their unsubstantiated claims.
So their standing up against religion is not them defining themselves against religion as you imagined it, but because they do not have any choice in the matter.
It would probably pay you to read my posts a little closer before replying to them as I made no such "wishes were fishes" statement about the possibility of a deity. Anywhere. At all. Ever. If you think I did then please quote me directly where I did.
If you have a problem with the statements of OTHER atheists however then I would urge you to take it up with them, not me. I am not their keeper.
Perhaps it would be better if you let me tell you what I believe, or would believe, rather than doing it on my behalf. I do not believe any scientist about anything. I consider and believe (or not) the evidence. The scientist is just the person who's job it is to provide that evidence. Nothing more.
What I CAN say however is that I am very well informed on what the evidence for the claim there was a Big Bang is. I am however not at all aware of ANY substantiation for the existence of a god.
That is a statement that is, I hope you will notice, entirely independent of what I actually believe or who I believe. It is merely a statement of what substantiation I have been offered.
Whether I believe there was a "big bang" or not does not change the fact that I have been shown PLENTY of evidence for the claim.
God: Not so much. Least of all by you.
And there we have it once again. Every time I ask for evidence I get some kind of "Oh go find it yourself" non-reply cop out. Each. And. Every. Time. Invariably. Without. Fail.
Not what I said, do keep up. I said Nugent dealt with the question of why people who do not believe in a god define themselves in opposition to something they do not believe in. Nothing about people ticking Catholic AT ALL. You seem to have lost the run of the conversation a bit.
You asked a question, and I linked you to someone who offers a good answer. Nothing more.
That is what I said, yes. Again do keep up. I said by all means do the study in question. The trends in the OTHER countries I mentioned however do not bode well for your imagination of what the results may be.
And I notice you also did not give any evidence for the questions asked there too.
I trust you have heard the phrase "Correlation is not causation"? If not it might be a useful one for you to consider. Suicide rates have gone up as software piracy has too as it happens. Suicide rates have gone up at the same time as the penetration of Smart Phone sales have too. Suicide rates have gone up with the number of emoticons in common usage.
Arbitrarily picking one thing (suicide rates) and then equally arbitrarily correlating it with some other thing just shows your bias. It certainly does not show one was actually caused by the other.
And what Propaganda is it you even speak of here? Can you show me what it is, who has been feeding it, to whom, and by what medium? I genuinely have no idea what propaganda you are speaking of. Nor, I suspect (hopefully erroneously) do you.
My own ethics would be that people pregnant with such a baby would have that choice. My ethics would have us live neither in a society where all of them are aborted against the will of the parents in question, or none of them are aborted because the parents are forced to bring them to term.
So no, my ethics involves many differences from what you appear to imagine. But at least you are asking me this time, rather than asserting it on my behalf like you did earlier. This is progress of a sort.
Oh I dunno. The word bastard has a very particular meaning. I would be more interested in whether the term is ACCURATE or not. Not whether people should be using it at all.
But I think you are merely assuming what would happen if one insults prophets around here. I have on many occasion pointed out that said prophet was reportedly illiterate, very likely a pedophile, also very likely a cynopobe, and something of a war monger. I have not been harassed, cited, admonished, or even disagreed with for pointing out any of these things.
You're just a condescending bore. We could counter arguments back and forth all day. The reason i won't is manifold. I haven't the time and i've stated my opinions. Unlike you, i'm not obsessed with atheism, religion, abortion, abortion rallies being disrupted, pregnant women. I'll post a few posts on a thread alright but i won't stay infront of a pc all day going tit for tat with an anoymous poster who seems to have very few interests in this world bar 'social issues'.0 -
Insults demean only the insulter, never the target. I think we can do without going down to that level. Or at least I will not be joining you on it.
As I said already, though you choose to ignore it twice now, there is no "obsession with atheism" in play here at all. In fact as I ALSO said (which you also ignored) I do not even use that word generally to define myself.
What actually happens is the things that DO define me (and I gave many examples, one which triggered you badly) put me in unfortunate conflict with the religious.
That you want to extrapolate what my life interests are solely from what I have discussed on this thread however, show that you just want to get personal, rather than deal with the issues being discussed. If you want to attack the poster and not the post, there is not much I can do to help you. I do apologize that my interests do not have my posting numerous posts about "soap operas". The real world concerns me more.0 -
-
The vast majority of people have no problem in getting a school-place in a religious-patronised school, because the vast majority of them are under-subscribed.Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »The thing about being "extreme" athiesm is that, living in in a non-secular state you wind up having to lie in order to access basic servies that should be availabvle unconditionally, case in point - education. Home schooling becomes less of an option and more of a necessity
It's only really an issue in the best schools in South Dublin, where parents will inevitably have alternative options.
Of course, it shouldn't be an issue anywhere. But lets keep things in perspective, because if you were to base your understanding on this thread (or on the media commentary), you might think the problem bigger than it actually is.0 -
half a million?
i reckon its a lot higher than...half the people don't even believe in it and i'd include mass goer's in that0 -
Sometimes we think Atheism exists more in society than it truly does because we read threads on here about it, it's almost the echo chamber effect, it's not as overwhelming in society as it is on some sections of the internet. Low church attendances doesn't mean a high percentage of people don't believe in some higher being/force.0
-
Advertisement
-
A Little Pony wrote: »Sometimes we think Atheism exists more in society than it truly does because we read threads on here about it, it's almost the echo chamber effect, it's not as overwhelming in society as it is on some sections of the internet. Low church attendances doesn't mean a high percentage of people don't believe in some higher being/force.
True. I'd say more people identify as non religious than true athiests0 -
True. I'd say more people identify as non religious than true athiests
Maybe I'm missing the point but people who believe in religion are "theists" and people who don't believe in any religion are "atheists" regardless of whether they label themselves as that or not.
The Oxford English dictionary describes an atheist as "A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."
If you don't believe in a religion what are you if not an atheist?
Are you saying a lot of people believe in some form of god or higher being and are not therefore "atheist"? Are those people not "agnostic"?
Am I missing something?0 -
Je_suis_Jean wrote: »Maybe I'm missing the point but people who believe in religion are "theists" and people who just don't believe in religion are "atheists" regardless of whether they label themselves as that or not.
The Oxford English dictionary describes an atheist as "A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."
If you don't believe in a religion what are you if not an atheist?
Am I missing something?
Agnostics.0 -
Je_suis_Jean wrote: »Maybe I'm missing the point but people who believe in religion are "theists" and people who don't believe in any religion are "atheists" regardless of whether they label themselves as that or not.
The Oxford English dictionary describes an atheist as "A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."
If you don't believe in a religion what are you if not an atheist?
Are you saying a lot of people believe in some form of god or higher being and are not therefore "atheist"? Are those people not "agnostic"?
Am I missing something?
What about people who say they are catholics but don't know what seperates Catholicism from Protestantism?
Maybe there should be a cultural catholic option.0 -
-
Join Date:Posts: 33372
-
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 33372
A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »The vast majority of people have no problem in getting a school-place in a religious-patronised school, because the vast majority of them are under-subscribed.
Maybe, but my point is that they are required to allow their children to receive the sarcaments are they not? Or at least expected to?Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
0 -
Out of that 78%, I'd say an awful just go to churches for funerals, weddings, christenings and christmas.Harry Palmr wrote: »Don't forget to baptise your childs education prospects everyone, esp you rural types.
I seriously have to laugh at threads and posts like this.
Ireland is a catholic country. If you think churches are empty or that people only baptise their kids for a day out etc. then get yourselves down to your local church for Sunday mass. The majority of them are packed every Sunday.
The assumptions made in threads like this are by and large far removed from the reality.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 33372
keith_sixteen wrote: »I seriously have to laugh at threads and posts like this.
Ireland is a catholic country. If you think churches are empty or that people only baptise their kids for a day out etc. then get yourselves down to your local church for Sunday mass. The majority of them are packed every Sunday.
The assumptions made in threads like this are by and large far removed from the reality.
Depends on what you define as a "catholic" country. In terms of constitution, sure. In terms of a label, maybe. In terms of belief and practice, most certainly not. If it was we wouldn't have made a lot of the social progess we've made over the last few decades, from divorce and contracaption to gay marriage.
I see your point about the "day out" but the reality is people are simply not taking their kids to mass in anywhere near as much numbers as they are baptising them.
The statistics regarding the numbers of people attending mass would not lead me to believe that the chruches are "packed" and nor would conversations with genuine catholics who do go to mass every Sunday: any of them I've spoken to see it as very disappointing and saddening to see half-empty churches and merged parishes.
http://www.irishcatholic.ie/article/who-still-goes-mass-ireland-nowadaysDublin voters were the least likely to attend a service weekly (17%), but attendance rates were much stronger in other regions: 37% in Leinster, 41% in Munster, and 47% in Connacht/Ulster.Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
0 -
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »Depends on what you define as a "catholic" country. In terms of constitution, sure. In terms of a label, maybe. In terms of belief and practice, most certainly not. If it was we wouldn't have made a lot of the social progess we've made over the last few decades, from divorce and contracaption to gay marriage.
I see your point about the "day out" but the reality is people are simply not taking their kids to mass in anywhere near as much numbers as they are baptising them.
The statistics regarding the numbers of people attending mass would not lead me to believe that the chruches are "packed" and nor would conversations with genuine catholics who do go to mass every Sunday: any of them I've spoken to see it as very disappointing and saddening to see half-empty churches and merged parishes.
http://www.irishcatholic.ie/article/who-still-goes-mass-ireland-nowadays
I see what you're saying...I dunno tho man...you could describe rural GAA clubs in the same way tho...half empty training sessions and merged clubs....my experience in Dublin tho was that my local church was always packed.
Can't say much since I left the country a few years ago..the Swiss do a very clever thing. They make you put your money where your mouth is. So if you declare yourself as belonging to a religion, you pay 1% of your salary in a church tax.
I haven't looked up the stats....I reckon if Ireland do something similar, you might be surprised by how many people continue to opt in.
I am no fan of the catholic church by the way, and happily declared myself as non-religious here in CH.0 -
Churches are still busy in Dublin due to supply and demand. Smaller churches are being slowly sold off and they're not building new ones. Thus the bigger churches remain busy.
Still not as busy as when I was a kid. If you were late for midday mass you were standing at the back. Now there's nobody without a seat0 -
Advertisement
-
No. That isn't the case, outside of affluent parts of south Dublin. There might be isolated cases in somewhere like Cork, where there were sudden population explosions with massive housing developments, but generally, this is not an issue.Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »Maybe, but my point is that they are required to allow their children to receive the sarcaments are they not? Or at least expected to?
I have nieces and nephews in Roman Catholic-patronised primary schools (in Tipperary and Kildare), and not one of the kids are Roman Catholic. I don't think either of my sisters, the mothers of these children, even know what a 'baptism barrier' is. It has never been an issue in 80% of the country.0 -
-
keith_sixteen wrote: »I seriously have to laugh at threads and posts like this.
Ireland is a catholic country. If you think churches are empty or that people only baptise their kids for a day out etc. then get yourselves down to your local church for Sunday mass. The majority of them are packed every Sunday.
The assumptions made in threads like this are by and large far removed from the reality.
Ireland is officially secular for your information.
I don't get why people say "Ireland is a catholic country" as if it's a marvellous thing.
I don't go to mass and nor do I intend to just for research but they all official studies show that church attendance is down.
Also, number of churches is less so that might explain how they are fuller.
I hardly know anybody in my circle that goes to mass every Sunday, they are definitely in the minority but I do know many who just go on the "day out".0 -
-
Ireland is officially secular for your information.
I don't get why people say "Ireland is a catholic country" as if it's a marvellous thing.
I don't go to mass and nor do I intend to just for research but they all official studies show that church attendance is down.
Also, number of churches is less so that might explain how they are fuller.
I hardly know anybody in my circle that goes to mass every Sunday, they are definitely in the minority but I do know many who just go on the "day out".
Over 78% ticking the Catholic box. They have classified themselves technically as Catholic. 78% is a huge percentage. The Marriage Equality Referendum received 64% of the vote. Ireland is a Catholic country. Get over it:D0 -
keith_sixteen wrote: »I seriously have to laugh at threads and posts like this.
Ireland is a catholic country. If you think churches are empty or that people only baptise their kids for a day out etc. then get yourselves down to your local church for Sunday mass. The majority of them are packed every Sunday.
The assumptions made in threads like this are by and large far removed from the reality.
Fr.Iggy was on NT or RTE this morning and he scoffed at the latest figures. In his opinion the actual number of practising Catholics he puts at approx 30% not 78%.0 -
Fr.Iggy was on NT or RTE this morning and he scoffed at the latest figures. In his opinion the actual number of practising Catholics he puts at approx 30% not 78%.
78% consider themselves Catholic as opposed to atheistic. There's varying degrees to which people in this group practise naturally. But on a national census form they wanted to be identified as Catholic, not pagan or non religion. No one forced their hand.0 -
78% consider themselves Catholic as opposed to atheistic. There's varying degrees to which people in this group practise naturally. But on a national census form they wanted to be identified as Catholic, not pagan or non religion. No one forced their hand.
Im not disputing those figures. I'm just referencing the point one man made from his experiences within the RC church at present.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Back in the 1980s when weekly mass attendance was at over 85%, there were several masses on a Sunday and Saturday evening. Churches were completely packed. Now, there may only be one mass held at weekends, so it might look like churches are still busy, but it masks the fact that church attendance has all but collapsed in Ireland. It is less than 10% in parts of Dublin. Rural Ireland is understandably more devout as it is much more conservative than the urban areas but attendance is falling here too.
It has reached the point where the church is selling off and closing churches, and the huge 1960s church in Finglas west will be demolished soon. This will accelerate going forward.
The lack of new vocations means that priests are dying off and are coming over here from abroad, and parishes are merging. The church is in serious decline. The census figures only show those who identify as "culturally Catholic."0 -
Over 78% ticking the Catholic box. They have classified themselves technically as Catholic. 78% is a huge percentage. The Marriage Equality Referendum received 64% of the vote. Ireland is a Catholic country. Get over it:D
If Ireland was still a devout Catholic country, there is just no way - no way - the same-sex marriage referendum would have passed, it wouldn't even have got 30% of a yes vote. The power of the church is all but gone.0 -
The 78% figure is interesting. From my circle of friends I know plenty that describe themselves as spiritual. They believe in a higher power just don't believe in the Abrahamic god. Yet they still tick the Catholic box on the census. I think the number of actual practicing, believing Catholics is lower then 78% but that doesn't make then atheists.
On Church attendances I was down home recently (aka not Dublin) for a family months mind. There used to be 3 masses on a Sunday in the main parish church when I was growing up. There is now one. There were plenty people in the church but nobody was standing like used to be the case. The age profile doesn't look very encouraging for the future survival of the Catholic Church.0 -
See you must be old, i know alot of the guys on here are from the 50s, 60s and 70s. See im from the 90s and 2000s . I went to cathlic school and they were tolerant of everybody. We were thought to love not hate.It's alright, OP I'll forgive you. A good Catholic Irish education tells you that anyone who doesn't believe in God is a "pagan". I remember.0 -
the beer revolu wrote: »I seriously doubt that there are many pagans in Ireland.
I last remember hearing that expression in primary school in the 80's by a complete wagon of a teacher to describe people who didn't go to mass.0 -
JupiterKid wrote: »If Ireland was still a devout Catholic country, there is just no way - no way - the same-sex marriage referendum would have passed, it wouldn't even have got 30% of a yes vote. The power of the church is all but gone.
Interesting 2 of my neighbours voted No in the SSM referendum. They told a few people they were doing so and told their own kids that they were voting No to protect all the little babies that the gay couples were planning to adopt in droves (i.e. Iona speak). The kids in the neighbourhood actually had a great debate about it.
Anyway, the rhetoric changed after the Yes vote and subsequent celebrations. They are not going out of their way to tell people that they voted Yes and that they were delighted with the result. It's hilarious.0 -
That rag isn't a source. It specialises in headlines like 'Worst Winter Weather in 500 Years' type headlines to sell copy.
Pio was hunded by a Jesuit priest half his life. The Church are and have to be sceptical in such cases. Most apparition sites were accepted by the church long after the event.
The independent? It's one of Britain's most reputable newspapers!0 -
-
78% consider themselves Catholic as opposed to atheistic. There's varying degrees to which people in this group practise naturally. But on a national census form they wanted to be identified as Catholic, not pagan or non religion. No one forced their hand.
Well actually, they are. My two children were bapitized to make it easier to get into school and generally to "fit in" when the rest of the class are doing communions etc. If you want to insist on calling them catholic, go ahead, but you have accept that they have a much stronger faith in the tooth fairy, and an over sized rabbit that left chocolate eggs in the garden last Easter.0 -
Advertisement
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement