Half a million Pagans in the Country.

Pugzilla

Just like any genre of fiction, every religion just copies bullsh*t from its predecessors.

nice_guy80

I'm a Nialist

like the boys in the Big Lebowski

Cabaal

Cabaal wrote: »

Nonsense, the early Irish government basically outsourced our education and health to the catholic church because that's what the church wanted. (get those kids early and you'll own them for life).

This is simply false. You clearly haven't attempted to inform yourself of the most elementary facts of the situation.

The British administration in Ireland established a National Board of education shortly after Catholic Emancipation, which tried to unite children of different denominations in the one 'national' school. However, there was no public appetite for this by protestant, dissenter, or catholic families, and by 1850, 96% of the schools in Ireland were denominationally segregated.

This is the situation that was inherited by the Irish government after independence, which government simply could not afford to engage in a huge school-building programme, nor did (nor does) it have the constitutional right to compulsorily acquire these schools.

What we are dealing with today is a relic of history, a relic of popular preference.

You cannot expect to be taken seriously in your lengthy pontifications in this thread, when you have not researched the most basic facts.

drdeadlift

nice_guy80 wrote: »

I'm a Nialist

like the boys in the Big Lebowski

The second i read Nialist i though of that very film.Deadly flick!

sbsquarepants

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Why do non Pagans and non Christians celebrate Christmas?

Santy for the kids.
Family get togethers.
Great food.
Time off work.
Pressies.

I'm an atheist, but what's not to love about Christmas?

Cabaal wrote: »

This state should not be paying for any religion to be pushed on its people.

As I said, religion and belief is a very personal thing. Practice it if you wish, raise your children in it if you wish, but don't expect the government to indoctrinate your children.

Exactly - I don't care if you want to spend 10 hours a day praying and learning religion - that's your choice. Choice is the important word however. Should the state fund this - no - the members of the club should fund it.

I don't play golf - I'd be rightly pissed off if the government made golf a mandatory school subject at the expense of lets say maths, and not only forced my kids to play it but forced me to pay for it, just because other people wanted their kids to play.

It would seem, to me anyway, quite a reasonable proposition that that person should fund his own lessons and take his kids their on his own time!

nozzferrahhtoo

jimbobaloobob wrote: »

Half a million people who believe in nothing.

How does "they to not believe in X" translate to "They believe in nothing"? You seem to have a much more labile use of terms than I am used to applying myself.

jimbobaloobob wrote: »

Doesn't that make it a belief system?

Well I for one do not define myself as an "atheist" because atheism is not my belief system.

But I do HAVE a belief system. I do not deny that. Atheism is a RESULT of my belief system.

My belief system is a simple one. I do not invest belief (constitutionally I CAN not do so, even if I wanted to) in claims made without ANY substantiation.

Simple as that.

Now GIVEN the claim that a non-human intelligent and intentional agent exists and it created our universe is not slightly but ENTIRELY unsubstantiated in even the smallest way......... I am therefore, as a result, what people would call "atheist".

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not sure if it's indoctrination at all; actually I find writing it off as such to be a self-satisfying cop out from developing a serious analysis. And, to be frank, not a little patronising.

How can facts be patronizing?

Getting children young and telling them not only that there is a god (without any evidence at all) but which religion they belong to..... before then permeating god belief and concepts throughout as much of the school curriculum as possible.......... certainly bears some hall marks of indoctrination to me.

For example what would it look like if we started children off at age 4 by telling them one particular political party is the best, and that said children are a member of that party? I doubt many people would fail to see the indoctrination in play there. But somehow switch the SAME practice to religion, and the clear suddenly becomes opaque to them.

Very distinct from say, before we are offered the "All education is therefore indoctrination of a sort" from some corner, teaching and presenting children facts for which we have actual substantiation and reason for considering true, and without telling them that they themselves are somehow socially defined by membership in those facts.

Deleted User wrote: »

People need belief in something. Even atheists need it. It's a bit hard to endure the toil and Sisyphean struggle of a life that ultimately ends in pain for each of us and our loved ones (no exceptions!) without attaching some form of meaning, of belief, to our individual existence.

Whether your intention or actual position or not, the above comes across very strongly as if you think belief and meaning are somehow synonymous. They most certainly are not. There are any number of ways for an individual to find meaning in life without having to believe in unsubstantiated nonsense to get there. What one believes, and what meaning one finds in life, are two entirely different things.

What atheists "believe in" tends to be as individual as they are, though I note you did not offer a single example of what you yourself think it is.

Also you present pain and suffering as if it is somehow something to overcome or avoid while getting through life. For many of us the opposite is true and pain and suffering is something that defines said life...... and presents the measures, foundations and axioms for which much meaning can be derived. What would, for example, the meaning of selfless self-sacrifice even mean in a universe devoid of all pain and suffering?

So you talk of meaning as some kind of treatment for suffering, when in fact meaning and suffering can be two sides of the same coin.

Deleted User wrote: »

It's when the belief in the purposefulness of life goes that the idea of suicide enters.

Not necessarily. One can believe life is without any actual purpose, but still find purpose and meaning in ones own existence all the same. Any they can do so without one shred of delusion or investment in the unsubstantiated.

So suicide enters not where belief in a purpose goes....... but when the ability to find a purpose goes. And the two are not, as I explained above, the same thing.

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually I'm not defending those who hold such views; I'm defending their right to hold them. That the nuance wilfully eludes you is not my issue.

Not sure any such thing has eluded the user in question so much as they might be baffled as to why you feel the need to "defend" something that is not, in any meaningful sense, under any attack.

Unfortunately we seem to have come into an age in human development where people see any dissent from an espoused position or opinion as somehow, magically, being an attack on their right to hold/express it. Which, comically, generally manifests itself as ire being expressed at the latter person having been allowed to hold or express THEIRS.

Try it out sometime. Use the boards.ie search function for the phrase "I have a right to my opinion" and see how many of the results of people using it are actually them being pissed off not that their right to an opinion was infringed......... but that someone else had the sheer gall to express a counter opinion.

When did "I have a right to my opinion" become "I would much rather you did not express yours" I wonder?

sbsquarepants

Deleted User wrote: »

Eh, it means lack of belief in a god. In a god. It does not mean a lack of belief. Yes, egg everywhere.

I don't understand your distinction?

Everybody by default has to believe something (including atheists) - it would be impossible to function on anything bar the most basic level if you didn't.

If I didn't believe this machine would broadcast my gibberish to the world I wouldn't bother typing it, for example. If I didn't believe petrol would make my car go, I wouldn't have bothered buying some on the way to work this morning and so and so forth.

That doesn't in anyway imply that atheism is a belief system though?? Just a group of wildly different people who share a single common trait. Saying all atheists share a belief in anything makes no more sense than saying all redheads do.

Gerrup Outta Dat!

Talon Damp Eyeteeth wrote: »

You might want to look up the definition of pagan. There's a huge difference between people who don't believe in a God and a follower of a polytheistic religion.


The findings are hardly surprising. At least people will now state that they have no religion rather than enter the religion they were born into.

A lot of people still tick Catholic blindly and baptise their kids to get a place in school. Religion should have no part of state-funded schools whatsoever. A school that subscribes to any particular religion should not receive a penny in state funding.

It’s like a Nazi-style apartheid.

54and56

JupiterKid wrote: »

I'm an admin on Ireland's largest LGBT message boards and the amount of gay men over the age of 45 who identify as Catholic on their profiles is very high. Given the way the Church has treated LGBT people, you would think this quite baffling but indoctrination from early childhood and subsequent social conditioning is a very powerful thing.

Ergo why most people want church weddings, their children baptised, religious funerals etc. indoctrination is a very powerful force.

And this is why the Church should be forcibly removed from influence on State schools. They can run their own religious schools if they so wish.

Pero_Bueno

Zebra3 wrote: »

Imagine that. Delighted that the RC Church which abducted vulnerable young women and put them in gulags along with the endless covering up of child rape and usurping democracy.

Imagine decent people being delighted that this pillar of right-wing criminality is dying out.

I agree!!

But people need to be consistent, the same people are welcoming a new fascist women hating regime ...

Gerrup Outta Dat!

Gerrup Outta Dat! wrote: »

A lot of people still tick Catholic blindly and baptise their kids to get a place in school. Religion should have no part of state-funded schools whatsoever. A school that subscribes to any particular religion should not receive a penny in state funding.

It’s like a Nazi-style apartheid.

Ah jaysus, not just apartheid, but Nazi-style? You've gone way OTT there.

80% of schools have no problem, because they're under-subscribed. The problem of a 'baptism barrier' only actually arises in 20% of schools, mainly in affluent areas of South Dublin.

So it simply doesn't make sense for people to claim that families only baptise their children to get a school-place. I have nieces and nephews in Irish schools, and in each case, like 80% of schools, the school has fewer students than it can cater for. They are crying out for students, of all faiths and none!

realdanbreen

murpho999 wrote: »

Out of that 78%, I'd say an awful just go to churches for funerals, weddings, christenings and christmas.

No you're thinking of the so called 'atheists' that do that!

realdanbreen

murpho999 wrote: »

I don't get why the OP is toning his post as if it's regretful that more and more people are not believing in a man in the sky who created the earth in 6 days or his son who turned up at a wedding in Galaliee and looked after the booze and food.

Your understanding of faith hasn't moved on very much since you were 5 or 6 years of age I see.

Pherekydes

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not sure if it's indoctrination at all;

Teaching of [Church] doctrine is indoctrination. That's the meaning of the word. And that's what happens in state primary schools throughout the state.

realdanbreen

Pherekydes wrote: »

Teaching of [Church] doctrine is indoctrination. That's the meaning of the word. And that's what happens in state primary schools throughout the state.

But if you don't want your child to attend religious class just tell the teacher, no problem!

nozzferrahhtoo

realdanbreen wrote: »

No you're thinking of the so called 'atheists' that do that!

You have expressed this concern in the past but never explained what you think the problem is. You appear to have the idea that being atheist somehow precludes you from ever attending such ceremonies and you are only a "so called" atheist if you do. But the basis for such a position is far from clear.

realdanbreen wrote: »

Your understanding of faith hasn't moved on very much since you were 5 or 6 years of age I see.

Petty and empty disparagement of that sort is not likely to educate anyone on any topic either though, and only serve to have you make faith look bad by representing it so childishly.

Which his post was clearly intentionally facetious, I am not seeing anything that is pedantically inaccurate in it, or anything that is indicative of a lack of understanding of faith. So once again your MO of choice appears to be to indicate at some concern, without explaining the basis of it at all.

realdanbreen wrote: »

But if you don't want your child to attend religious class just tell the teacher, no problem!

You might want to look up the term "integrated curriculum" in an Irish context. If you need any part of it explained to you I am happy to answer questions rather than make some pointless "your understanding has not increased since you were 5" type dismissals of you.

But in short the concern is that faith formation permeates the entire curriculum and the act of removing a child specifically from a "religion class" is far from as effective as you think.

Pherekydes

Pherekydes wrote: »

Teaching of [Church] doctrine is indoctrination. That's the meaning of the word. And that's what happens in state primary schools throughout the state.

That's the etymology, not the definition. The definition you're referring to is totally obsolete.

Widdershins

nagdefy wrote: »

'You rural types'.

A superior 'urbane' person who probably couldn't set a mouse trap has spoken

Hahahahaha. I enjoyed that.

Anyway, I can see there's been some tension between posters so far but I found the points made were quite thought provoking.

I think all kinds of things are crutches to get people through the more challenging parts of life. For some it's religious devotion. That's fine by me (it's none of my business). I do agree that it should have no influence on education.

sbsquarepants

realdanbreen wrote: »

But if you don't want your child to attend religious class just tell the teacher, no problem!

And they can then spend that portion of their state funded education time doing fúck all instead of learning about talking shrubbery and zombie carpenters.
Which beats the alternative, it's what I done - but that time could probably have been better spent.
If you want your kids to learn about magic apples and talking snakes and all that other important stuff - tell them yourself!

School should be about reality, if you want them to learn magic you send them to hogworts!

nozzferrahhtoo

Widdershins wrote: »

I think all kinds of things are crutches to get people through the more challenging parts of life.

Perhaps, but I would suspect that is far from always a good thing. It SOUNDS good..... sure life gets difficult so whatever gets people through.......... what could be wrong with that......... but I do wonder.

To use a loose analogy, pain killers will help "get your through" if you have a painful wound. However in that case you want to do more than "get through it" as the wound can fester and become infected if not treated correctly. You might MASK that with pain killers while things just get worse.

Similarly I fear people use things, like religion at times, to "get through" things that would be better confronted and dealt with at ground zero at the time.

Grief is a common example at the loss of a loved one. There are papers written on the role of memories in dealing with grief in counselling. And memories fade over time. So dealing with the grief sooner rather than later makes sense in that context.

But religious belief can be used to "get through it". But what of the people who lose that faith later, and then in a sense lose the loved one all over again (having lost the idea of an after life where the loved one was assumed to reside)?

So it is just a general concern that we might be too inclined to "get through" something rather than "deal with" that sometime when the latter might be the (even if sometimes harder) better thing to do.

realdanbreen

sbsquarepants wrote: »

And they can then spend that portion of their state funded education time doing fúck all instead of learning about talking shrubbery and zombie carpenters.
Which beats the alternative, it's what I done - but that time could probably have been better spent.
If you want your kids to learn about magic apples and talking snakes and all that other important stuff - tell them yourself!

School should be about reality, if you want them to learn magic you send them to hogworts!

So you reckon that the time you spent 'doing fuk all' while religious class was on somehow affected you in later life? Perhaps it did but if so you must have been fairly fragile to begin with.

Nettle Soup

murpho999 wrote: »

I don't get why the OP is toning his post as if it's regretful that more and more people are not believing in a man in the sky who created the earth in 6 days or his son who turned up at a wedding in Galaliee and looked after the booze and food.

Good to see that more people are choosing "No Religion", shows we're maturing and slowly leaving our enforced religious past behind.

Out of that 78%, I'd say an awful just go to churches for funerals, weddings, christenings and christmas.

I think the 'No Religion' figure will shoot up in the next 2 decades. The fear of non-conformance is disappearing rapidly and people are a lot less gullible in the information age.

sbsquarepants

realdanbreen wrote: »

So you reckon that the time you spent 'doing fuk all' while religious class was on somehow affected you in later life? Perhaps it did but if so you must have been fairly fragile to begin with.

I think the time spent accruing actual knowledge, stood more to me in later life than the time spent doing fúck all. Absolutely I do.

realdanbreen

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

l.



You might want to look up the term "integrated curriculum" in an Irish context. .

You really think I want to do that?
You don't seem to realise that this is a social forum for normal social people.

nozzferrahhtoo

realdanbreen wrote: »

You really think I want to do that?

Not particularly, but I did include the word "might" with quite a lot of fore thought and intention that you might have missed when you fell over yourself trying too ignore it's presence.

But the fact is you thought that mere removal of a child from religion class meant there is therefore "no problem" and I am explaining to you why this is not quite representative of reality. That you ignore the explanation does not in any way mean it is not there.

realdanbreen wrote: »

You don't seem to realise that this is a social forum for normal social people.

Yes and in normal social contexts conversations go two ways, rather than one liners about what people have learnt since they were 5 or not. So if you want to join "a social forum for normal social people", perhaps you might take on some of the basic social mores.

realdanbreen

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I think the time spent accruing actual knowledge, stood more to me in later life than the time spent doing fúck all. Absolutely I do.

So really you wanted to stomp your little feet until your classmates gave up the religion class in order to keep you happy!

54and56

realdanbreen wrote: »

So really you wanted to stomp your little feet until your classmates gave up the religion class in order to keep you happy!

Religion is personal and shouldn't be anywhere near schools. The fact it is so ingrained in our education system is a reflection of the stranglehold the RC had over the country and it's leaders in the early days of the Republic.

That stranglehold has been irrevocably broken but it will take time, probably decades, before schools become exclusively about education and not education + indoctrination.

Je_suis_Jean

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Religion is personal and shouldn't be anywhere near schools. The fact it is so ingrained in our education system is a reflection of the stranglehold the RC had over the country and it's leaders in the early days of the Republic.

It predates independence by about 90 years.

It goes back to the time of Catholic Emancipation, which some posters on this thread are probably still fuming about.

Pugzilla

Reality is that no logical adult would accept a religion without some serious hard evidence to back it up. People only have these beliefs because they were brainwashed as children.

realdanbreen

Pugzilla wrote: »

Reality is that no logical adult would accept a religion without some serious hard evidence to back it up. People only have these beliefs because they were brainwashed as children.

Most logical adults that I know don't believe that 'once upon a time there was a big bang right? and everything , humans, animals, plants, etc just sort of appeared out of nowhere' and besides 'Don't have the cheek to dig too deep into this as it's complicated'