I sometimes wish I was still religious, I’ve become so cynical since…

Seeking out a ”religion” that accommodates their beliefs domestic, national and cultural is a characteristic of human nature. eg. Henry 8th, of England

Outside of the abuse it’s a little much to expect intelligent people to believe that a ghost visited a teenage virgin in a dream and impregnated her with the son of god. Fear of nothing after death is why people still believe.

This is very surprising actually. Why are people using the child abuse scandals as reasons to not believe in God or an afterlife? People are throwing out the Church for all the wrong reasons.

@david- and what are the right reasons to stay with the church?

The reasons to either stay with or leave the Church are found in the Bible or other scripture. The actions of a minority of clergy do not tell us anything about why we are here or if there is an afterlife or not.

22% of the population have dropped the description of “religious” in the past few years. Have they read the bible in that time and made up their own mind on it? If so I respect that, but losing your religion over the child abuse scandals is just moving with a popular trend.

Most of us are born Catholic by default in this country. To leave the Church is a conscious decision to reject the teachings and evidence of that Church.

But how can any of us have justification for leaving when we don’t know what that evidence is to begin with?

David, if the church has evidence then I wish they would share it. Otherwise, “that which is proposed without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence”.

“Most of us are born Catholic by default in this country. To leave the Church is a conscious decision to reject the teachings and evidence of that Church. ”

David – no child is “born Catholic”, or anything else. They are born into families who happen to be Catholic/anything else. They are then baptised (or similar).

I find it strange that you object to adults making the informed and conscious decision to reject the teachings of the church when infants are baptised into it when they are clearly too young to either understand what is going on or make any kind of conscious decision. What was that about free will?

David, I agree with you. However, talking about God to people who just don’t want to hear it is pointless. I am Christian myself, not Catholic. If people could see how my Church works, I think they would be a whole lot less cynical. Unfortunately all this country has is the terrible example the Catholic Church has set for us.

My Church is all about caring for one another, socialising with people and learning about the Bible. We help people who are struggling by providing food. We help people get jobs and we have English classes. Recently my church ran an Alpha course which I’m just finishing teaching people the basics of Christianity which is LOVE! It’s all about PEACE and loving people no matter who they are.

Honestly, before I started this course I too was the cynical ‘All Christians are bad because of wars/child abuse etc’. Then I went and learned about it. If you don’t believe, then fine. But recognise the good it does for people when taught correctly.

@david- “Most of us are born Catholic by default in this country”- We are not born of any religion, however most of us are baptised to follow our parents belief. This is generally when we are too young to have an opinion or even speak.

“But how can any of us have justification for leaving when we don’t know what that evidence is to begin with?”- How can you then believe in something so strongly if you don’t have the evidence then?
Does actual scientific evidence not outweigh the want for evidence?

@John

The evidence is presented every week at mass but people have stopped going. Then church people try and present the evidence outside mass and they get accused of ramming it down people’s throats.

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

What evidence David?
Could you stick down a few clinchers here?

David, I think perhaps either we must have different definitions or standards for evidence, or this evidence providing is a new section of mass that didn’t exist in the 18 years during which I attended every week.

But as Gagsy asked, the best way of settling this is if you throw up a few examples of the evidence and we can try and objectively verify it.

@ David Higgins Opinion, Dogma and rhetoric does not equal evidence. I think people started to move away from the church once they lost faith in the church leaders. Once they did that they were finally able to think rationally about what their own beliefs were. It turns out that for a lot of us we don’t need to believe in some higher being to be satisfied with life. And you certainly don’t need to believe in any God to be a good person and help others.

Aoife, the intention of religion is not to provide satisfaction to people’s lives. It’s an attempt to explain our existence in this world.

@ David- “It’s an attempt to explain our existence in this world.”- So how’s that going 2012 years later?

Anybody that claims to be a follower of Christ and supports the Catholic church is an idiot,I’m sorry if that upsets some but its the truth.You just have to look at the untold riches the Vatican has and then you realize how unChrist like they really are,and if you can’t see this,like I said you are an idiot!!!

Religion is mass mind control and nothing to do with having a relationship with your preferred deity.

“Aoife, the intention of religion is not to provide satisfaction to people’s lives. It’s an attempt to explain our existence in this world.”

B@ll$ it is.

“The All-knowing Hairy Giant in the enchanted forest made your Granny and Grandad out of blu-tack and here we are. Now, here’s what you’re NOT allowed to do. Trangsress and there’s no party for you when you cark it.”

Mind control.

Ha! Just read your reply, Ru na Digs.

@Ru

There are clear differences between the many Christian Churches and just because one holds more wealth than the others doesn’t make their followers idiots.

You’re judging the Church like it’s a political party.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,833509,00.html

“Dividends help pay for Vatican expenses and charities such as assisting 1,500,000 children and providing some measure of food and clothing to 7,000,000 needy Italians.”

But how are they so wealthy David??

Pimping their alter boys out maybe?

‘The evidence is presented every week at mass’ – hahaha good one!!

The Old Testament is a good read for sure, but it’s about as real as Homers Odyssey. I’ve no problem with people being religious, whatever that entails, as long as it doesn’t impact negatively on anyone who doesn’t want to be a part of it. There are many millions of good people in all religions, that’s not the problem.
You used to be able to leave the Catholic church in Ireland, it appears you can’t any more, they stopped processing applications when the numbers wanting to leave increased. THAT right there is good reason for anyone to be cynical.
When my wife and I were getting married, “our” local church wouldn’t agree to marry us unless my wife signed an agreement that she would raise our children Catholic and wouldn’t interfere with their religious upbringing, she’s Protestant; so I politely told him were to shove it and we had a Protestant wedding.
If people just realised that they don’t need some big organisation to give them spiritual direction then the world would be a much better place, it’s all common sense anyway.
The Pope has a direct line to God??? Yeah right!!

@ David

No,that’s were you are wrong.I wasn’t comparing the Catholic church to a political party.I would say I was more comparing it to a monarchy and when you get right down to it,is exactly what it is.

People have begun to question their beliefs as they once took everything at face value in this country. If a priest said it was so, then it was, if a child somehow summoned up the courage to tell someone a priest had abused him it was usually dismissed outright. Impossible. If a priest said it didn’t happen, then it didn’t. If he said the people had to pray harder, stop eating meat on Friday, and give money to the church, they did. Then the abuse scandals began and everything changed. Suddenly the priests, those they never questioned, those they put on pedestals were toppled. If the priests, these messengers of almighty power in human form, were nothing more than vile power hungry men, out for whatever they could get then what about the message they were preaching? Suddely the people of Ireland began to take a closer look at that.
The Bible is full of outlandish claims that are nothing more that lies, The Book of Genesis claims that:

In the begining there was nothing and God said let there be light and he created day and night. No he didn’t, scientists generally agree a Big Bang like event created the universe.
On the second day God created the earth and the sky. No, he didn’t, at the time the bible was written they thought the sky was something physical as it sould be “seen”.
On the third day God created the water, land, plants and trees. Nope, wrong again.
On the fourth day God created the sun, moon and stars. Wrong again.
On the fifth day God created fish in the oceans and birds in the air. Sorry, wrong again (evolution?)
On the sixth day God created all the creatures of the land, oh and man. Wrong, evolution again.
Then God rested, who wouldn’t?

But isn’t there another biblical story about the creation of Adam and Eve in which God made Adam and put him in the garden of Eden to “to work it and watch over it”, he could eat from all the trees except the Tree of Knowledge. God brought all the animals to man for him to name them. None of them are found to be a suitable companion for the man, so God causes the man to sleep and creates a woman from his rib, the man calls her “woman”. The serpent tempts the woman to eat from the tree of knowledge and she in turn gives the fruit to man. As their “eyes are opened” they become aware of their nakedness and hide from God, covering themselves with leaves. God becomes angry with them and casts them out of the garden of Eden.
Wow, all of that happened in a day?

What about the story of Noah’s Ark? Did he really build a boat big enough to house two of all the animals of the world, even from countries that hadn’t been discovered for over a thousand years, whales, penguins, polar bears etc? We’re led to believe that this gigantic ship (well, it would have had to be) then came to rest on Mount Ararat, then all the animals went their seperate ways. Without a trace? Could elephants really have got from Turkey to Africa without leaving signs, or polar bears? Why did rattlesnakes bother leaving Turkey to go to the American continent, and surely some must have perrished on the journey and left a sign?

Even the Vatican admits that all these things are “stories”, used to explain things at a time when science didn’t exist. At that time they honestly believed the world was flat, the sky, or heavens, were a physical object that could fall and these “Stories were as good an explanation as any for things that simply weren’t understood.
So why should we discount the parts of the bible and scriptures that are obviously false but believe the rest “on faith” when it could be just as easily be said the whole lot is fiction, you’ll just have to believe it. It’s like a liar who has been proven to be a liar time and time again, in fact when you look into everything he has said everything was a lie, but he is still asking you to believe his next story…. but thats a lie too.

Can we all take a moment to appreciate how telling it is that he said you should read the bible? Not the Tanakh? Not the Qu’ran?

And I’ve read bits of the bible (genesis, exodus, revelations) and I have absolutely no idea of what evidence of the existence of God you are talking about. If a book is enough to quantify as evidence that something exists then in 2000 years are people to believe that Artemis Fowl was a real person?

I also went to mass fairly consistently for the first seven years of my life, attended at various school functions after that, made my confirmation, went to dozens of masses for funerals, christenings, weddings, remembrance ceremonies or because an elderly person I was looking after (as a care assistant) needed company. i have absolutely no notion of what you think constitutes as ‘evidence’ that can be found there. If you are referring to the priest’s arguments for the existence of god, those do not constitute evidence, they are arguments. If that is the evidence you are referring to then the following sentence constitutes proof that God does not exist. God does not exist.

See what I did there? You can’t tell people they don’t know what the church has to offer because they stopped going to mass, what has happened to most Irish people is that after going to church they have realised that it has nothing to offer. The article isn’t about fewer people checking out the church to see if it’s something they’d fancy, it’s about people who know what it’s about leaving it!

FFS David do some research. I left the church simply because the evidence in the bible suggests god does not exist. While I am an atheist I am new to it so I am still learning about it but I suggest you listen to mr Dawkins to understand why a lot of us are leaving organised religion. The internet is the final nail in religions coffin. People know too much now. The bible is just a good old book thats it. If you use it as a instruction manual for life please get out of politics. We have enough niavity in the dail.

I think this is a welcome clarification of a long standing gap between those who might best be described as nominally religious (I.e. Christian in the Irish context) and those who follow God with their hearts and minds. This is a fault line that runs throughout the laity and the clergy, hence the abuses in the RC church. The church with a small c will be a far more effective witness with fewer followers who are committed followers.

They can only import priests if there is a congregation interested in paying for their upkeep. We are looking at becoming a nation with the most arts centres and community libraries on the planet.

The obvious answer would be more secular schools…

Remove Catholic patronage from schools and that will cease to be a problem. It is appalling that in this day and age 95% of schools are still “run” by the Catholic Church.

Religion has NO place in a state funded school. If you want your child to be publicly educated and also be religious, teach them your beliefs at home.

A relative had a child recently, as school places are highly sought after in the school near him he decided to call them to see what way it was done. Both he and his wife have no religious beliefs. The lady on the phone from the school told him they didn’t discriminate on the grounds of religion… but if places were limited (and they always are) then preference will be given to catholic children baptised in the parish. My relative pointed out that this is effectively discriminiting on the grounds of religion by giving preferential treatment on religious grounds. They just didn’t get it, so he decided to baptise his child. It means absolutely nothing to them and is just a means to an end.

The thing is though – they are allowed to discriminate. Schools and medical establishments of which churches are the patrons are exempt from certain aspects of equality legislation.

How messed up is that!?!

Massively so Stephanie.

It’s a bit of a cop out to say that “education is the answer” as is said for so many problems in society. Unfortunately in this case people simply do not see the high degree of segregation, lies and discrimination that occur.

Parents can opt out – but that option just highlights the child as being “different”. The option is to lie to yourself as a parent and do what every other parent is doing.

The amazing thing is that in the cases where parents are willing to go through the motions of sacraments etc without any real belief of their own and not really wanting to take that route; this is more a sign of the level of support that parents are willing to give to their kid rather than a true reflection of the school.
So of course, the parents who are concerned take the route because they think the common denominator is religion. If only parents realised the common denominator is themselves and their interest in their kids’ education.

But then, it’s not about developing faith, it’s about indoctrination.

In some cases, such as myself, both.

my reasons includes both of the above.

I cannot understand how people believe such tripe!

I also cannot believe that people STILL believe such tripe considering all the cases of sexual abuse. The people who “GOD” sent to send “his word” were abusing children for years and, possibly still going on these days and they were all covered up.

People need to cop on and realise they don’t need reassurance from any religion to live their life. Stop living in fear of what might happen if you commit a sin!

I reckon the actions of the church have kind of made people feel a bit more open to expressing previously held doubts.

For many years, people tick the box of Catholic in surveys because they have been born into Catholic families. With people perhaps feeling less connected maybe they also feel freer to say “you know what, I don’t need this to teach me morals, I don’t need this to see meaning in life”

Sometimes where behaviours and beliefs are so ingrained it’s very hard to shift from that. I mean, it’s unthinkable that an American politician who would expect to be successful would admit to not believing in a christian god nevermind agnostic….

Fully agree Tommy! I think people were afraid of what other people would think of their questioning of the church before all of the abuse came to light.

no thanks I’m fine!

“Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.” Galatians 6:7 (full text)

I guess the Church is reaping what it sowed, “he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption”

Perhaps the problem is so many of in the Church & off the Church don’t practice what they preach or read full quotes.

It’s mad, it’s like they missed all those bits about what would happen to hypocrites in the bible..

Not all of them I’d say – but not finding out the answers is no reason to fill in the blank space with I.D.

So I guess on that basis we should close down all the swimming clubs in the country given the abuse scandals there? And let’s condemn all the swimming coaches in the country as they are all the same?

Logic here is gone mad.
Let’s blame the guilty and not condemn every priest in the country. That is a horrible thing to do. So is Fr. Peter McVerry guilty also? A man that has dedicated his life to helping the homeless?

…And take away a persons legal ability to leave the corrupt org officially!

I wish someone would help represent me in court – I wish to challenge their legal right to keep me officially signed up to their religion.
Can’t afford to take them on myself (such is the wealth and power they have!) but if any legal firm wishes to use me as a test case – here I am!

I am well pissed I got out before they did that. I would have happily made a massive fuss about not being able to leave. What happened to freedom of association?

You guys need to talk to John Murphy, he knows how to get yourself taken off their records :)
I think it has to do with formally rejecting their teachings in writing, but it was John that explained it on here before!!

Or you could convert, there’s a file sharing religion isn’t there?

Have you read any critique of Dawkins’ work?

Seriously, why the thumbs down? Donnagh said that his worldview was turned upside down by a single book. Good for him. But surely one would want to think very carefully about such a revolutionary book, and read its critics, just to be sure that one’s life wasn’t being turned upside down for nothing? If one reads the critics, and still follows Dawkins, fair enough. But it’s a bit much to change one’s mind about everything on the basis of a single book without further reflection.

Surely fans of Dawkins aren’t hostile to open minded enquiry and critique???

@AlMar:
I have bought and read
God and the New Atheism: A Critical Response to Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, by John F. Haught. It was touted as one of the best criticisms in print. It does make valid epistemological criticisms of atheism, but all of those criticisms apply with greater force to theism than atheism.
I think that Donnagh’s world-view reversal says as much about where his world view was before reading Dawkins as it does about Dawkins’ arguments.
I agree with your critique about the methodology of the survey, but such phenomena are notoriously hard to capture by any survey methods. What are indisputable are the data on falling mass attendance, and the (in my view, healthy) transition to a more secular society.

I didn’t need to read Dawkins to know that all religion is nonsense.
His book is quite entertaining though.
This idea of claiming you know there isn’t a god is silly though.
Just admit that you don’t know.
Maybe we will know and be able to prove it in the future but at the moment we simply don’t know how the universe started or whether there is some entity watching over it all in some way.
We also don’t know whether there is some sort of afterlife for our “souls” or not.

Watch ANY Atheist vs Theist debates and make up your mind. Atheists win hands down every time. In the eyes of rational and reasonable people, that is.

@JoHickey
It is perfectly permissible to dismiss any theistic characterisations of god.
They are as likely as Russell’s teapot, and that which is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
I have no quarrell with the notion of a hypothetical deistic god. It can only be operative in the real world as a form of thought experiment. Unlike theism which is a neurotic manifestation of some fellow human beings’ tendency to try to rule the lives of others on the bases of various pieces of fantasy-fiction.

@Max
Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists
Deism is a religious philosophy which holds that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that the universe is the product of a creator.
From wikipedia.

I don’t believe that something that is suggested as a possibility “without evidence” can be dismissed as a possibility.
Just say, ok, that’s possible, but so is any other theory I could pluck out of a haystack.

I don’t think our ideas about the big picture of the universe and any possible spiritual world should be in any way influenced by anything that any religion has ever said.

We should just think about these things completely independently of the lies.

@JoHickey
It is misleading to conflate a definition (and a poor one at that) of theism with the actual assertions of theists.
Theists do not ‘believe in the possibility of a deity’, they assert a detailed biography of god, alongside a host of rules that they claim he (it is almost invariably ‘he’) requires humans to obey.
It is this collection of beliefs and assertions that can be dismissed, as the bases for asserting them fail the most basic of evidentiary tests.

I have not read one of his books but he is an influence for me. I would critical of him in some ways but its actually the likes of eric hovind & all the extreme religions that have influenced more than anything & the bible itself convinced me its just a book. If you want to see how dangerous religion is go to Israel or the former yugoslavia. The attrocities carried out by so called god loving people is truely eye opening. As humans we can do much better than religion. Science is a very accurate & fair view of life & its easy to understand most of it.

@Max
For me, the reality is – I don’t know so I fully accept the void.
I don’t pretend that I know.
I don’t “believe” any theory – they are all basically lacking in any worthwhile evidence.
Simple.

Were you struck down by Our Lord before you could finish your heresy?

But what about the Cylon god? ( Sorry, couldn’t resist ).

@ Nikolas Koehler

There can be only one (or six!) .

So say we all!

Ironic that 47% claim to be religious and 41% claim to be able to speak the national language yet 84% define themselves as ‘culturally’ Roman Catholic. The Irish seem to favour Roman Catholicism over religion and national identity!

The problem is that peoples’ names are on the census. Do people trust the enumerators to keep information private? An anonymous survey may give truer responses.

This concept that ‘faith’ is a quality to be admired or deplored is in my view flawed.

Faith is essentially a belief and as such, in the absence of willful self-delusion or insanity has to be involuntary.
I’d love if I won the lotto but I can’t force myself to believe that I will.

Similarly, having educated myself as best I can on matters philosiphical, much as I would wish that eternal life awaits me I can’t make myself believe that it does.

So I don’t think we can laud someone for having faith or not having faith – only whether they’ve arrived at their beliefs based on rational reasoning and not based on unquestioning acceptance of doctrine.

I don’t know anybody, or indeed any Church, that believes those things Donnagh.

If you want to critique the teachings of the Catholic Church, at least familiarise yourself with them, and the reasons behind them!!!

AlMar, what Donnagh has just described are core beliefs of the catholic church.

IHHH-URRRRGHH

“errrr, what is transubstantiation?”

Actually, Reg, they aren’t.

The Angel of the Lord appeared unto Mary, and she conceived of the Holy Ghost.

Take this all of you and eat it, this is my body which will be given up for you.
Take this all of you and drink from it. This is the cup of my blood, …

Gabriel didn’t impregnate her, I think this is what AlMar’s getting hoity-toity about. It was in fact THE HOLY SPIRIT WHO DID THE DEED, which you’ll agree is a far more believable set of circumstances.

The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree…

And the wafer doesn’t turn into Christ’s corpse. It turns into his actual living body. Which as Nivag Yeoh said is so much less ridiculous…

Jeez Donnagh, what were you thinking? next of all you’ll be saying that they believe that some guy could walk on water, there’s a pregnant virgin and that the man in the sky created the Earth and everything in it!

They’re not that mad…. are they?

Oh it turns into his living body! Thanks for clarifying. Makes so much sense now.

A John Waters article is like a mental prison of head-melting, nebulous verbosity. But like a fool, I read the odd one of his articles, just out of mild curiosity.

No doubt this Gallup Poll hit the Count Waters, in his crypt, like a beam of sunshine.

If your children want to be Catholic, nothing is stopping them from being baptised when they are able decide for themselves. I was baptised as a baby and raised as a Catholic. I began questioning religion before I even made my confirmation – no external influences, it just didn’t make any sense to me. I was never told by my parents or school that I could choose my own beliefs, I was just a Catholic. It was a cousin of mine (also raised a Catholic) who told me she didn’t believe in God anymore and it was the first time I realised I could make up my own mind.

Also note that you can’t formally defect from the church: http://www.countmeout.ie/suspension/
As far as the church is concerned I’m just a lapsed Catholic as opposed to an ex-Catholic. My belief (or lack thereof) is my own and the church can’t change that but it does bug me slightly that technically I’m still counted. I know it shouldnt bother me but it does.

Sam, maybe you could marry someone else?

Sam that really sounds like something you should work out between yourselves, before you have children; I’ve heard of relationships breaking down over the same matter, which is very sad when you think about it.

I’d be in the same boat as Niamh, although I defected from the Church before the change in canon law was introduced. I’d imagine most people would appereciate their parents holding off on religious indoctrination, letting them decide for themselves what they believe in, although religious people mightn’t agree. Good luck!!

It does make sense if the meek shall inherit the earth – and the Vatican bank shall collect is wealth!

True, but war, starvation and misery aren’t the fault of a ‘God’ – they are very much anthropogenic (human made).

It’s totally valid to disagree with the Catholic Church, I do myself, but to say all religion is always a bad thing is a little bit unfair. (Of course, as a Quaker, find me one war which can be pined on extremist Quaker love for humanity, non violence and social justice!)

Almar
It amazes me how we fall into agreement in certain matters. To ask someone are they religious is like asking do you get up in the morning! Even Dawkins recognises that the human is a spiritual, conscience ridden being that has evolved to seek meaning and direction through spiritual belief or at least through a spiritual quest to understand the world around us. It amazes me that 47% of Irish people would deny that fact while 84% would still declare themselves to be Roman Catholic in the census!
I think it rather arrogant in the face of our general ignorance to declare oneself as non religious or non spiritual but,on the other hand, I also think its unbelievable that 84% of Irish people would EVEN STILL define themselves as Roman Catholic in the 2011 census thereby confirming it as the de-facto state religion, but there you go…
I think asking people are they secularist would account for a better measurement of peoples attitude of how their religious and spiritual views should be accounted for by the state.

(A reply to some of your points throughout the thread)
I have bought and read: God and the New Atheism: A Critical Response to Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, by John F. Haught. It was touted as one of the best criticisms in print. It does make valid epistemological criticisms of atheism, but all of those criticisms apply with greater force to theism than atheism.
I think that Donnagh’s world-view reversal says as much about where his world view was before reading Dawkins as it does about Dawkins’ arguments.
I agree with your critique about the methodology of the survey, but such phenomena are notoriously hard to capture by any survey methods. What are indisputable are the data on falling mass attendance, and the (in my view, healthy) transition to a more secular society.

I think Spiritualism and religion at completely different things, you can be a spiritual person without being religious.

I think the common misconception around the word “atheist” may cause confusion.

An atheist doesn’t believe in a god. They don’t completely rule out the possibility, so you can’t really have a “convinced atheist”. Most people tend to think of the term “atheist” as a sort of existential nihilist description, when in reality this would be an “anti theist”.

An agnostic believes that there is something but is not sure what.

So perhaps we have far more agnostics, a load of atheists that don’t realise they are atheist, and the people deemed atheist by most peoples reckoning are actually anti theists?

I heard George Carlin describe it as a mental illness or insufficiency on a radio interview with Art Bell..

And it wasn’t even a good fairy tale at that.

Do as I say or you will burn in hell!

Hardly something to tell your children at night!

So Jesus was a wolf who was out to make money…mmm…think he was doing something wrong if that was the plan…

No the Vatican are the wolves, the followers are the sheep and Jesus was the elephant that…

…Oh no there was no elephant in the story :-/

I believe in Science and not religion. Yet does science know everything yet? No it doesn’t. Nobody knows what happens after death all we know for sure is that we decompose that is physical and chemical. Think abstractly about it and you will realize there are vast possibilities. The universe is so complex and the human mind is too limited to even begin to sense everything possible and existing in this Universe. God may not exist as a conscious supreme being but what started the Universe is God and man used the term God to exploit people for money and power.
I’m Agnostic by the way. Not Atheist. I’ll only know the truth when I die but I do not believe in Religion what so ever. Independent thinking is the right you are given and religion did exploit that right for their own gain for many years in Ireland by brainwashing; now things have changed.

Of course science doesn’t know everything, that’s why scientists continue exploring and progressing. There’s nothing wrong with not knowing everything and to it’s ok to admit that.The thing is that science doesn’t try and fill in the blanks with baseless statements and ideas. Scientific theories are based on large amounts of scientific fact. One of the many reasons I like science over religion is that science welcomes critism to increase and improve understanding. Scientific theories are corrected and improved if new evidence is brought to light.

I don’t know that there is an afterlife but I don’t believe in an afterlife because I’ve seen nothing that proves otherwise. And I’m perfectly ok with having only one life time. If I see solid evidence that proves there is one, I’ll change my stance but as facts stand now an afterlife makes no sense to me. The ONLY reason the idea of one was ever my head is because I was raised as a Catholic.

A very interesting argument! But you wonder if without it, what would those people do instead? It’s a tad along the lines of “guns don’t kill people, people do” argument. I agree many religious people are good, kind people. They are some of my favourite people, there was a chaplain in my college who I absolutely adored (and still do!) because he is just such a good man.

But religion has been infallible and untouchable all while doing untold damage to the community, just look at what the Catholic Church is doing with regard to contraception in the Philippines. Our own constitution prohibits causing offense with regard to religion. But there’s nothing in there about sexual orientation, political allegiance, ethnicity etc. unless you’re inciting hatred and it’s very easy to do one without doing the other.

Stephanie, I am not a religious or spiritual person. But the 10 commandments make moral and logical sense to me. If we all obeyed them we’d be fine as a society. But it is the twists that people put on the rules and the interpretation that makes it fallible.
Oh, and guns don’t kill people, bullets do. ;-)

The ten commandments really aren’t that great. The first 3 are just about obeying god, I guess if you are already religious you might consider them important for a moral society, but I certainly don’t. Then you have one to not work on Sundays, I like my weekend as much as the next guy, but again I wouldn’t consider that rule integral to a moral society. The fifth is about honouring your father and mother, which is a good rule of thumb but hardly a rule that should be cast in stone, sadly there are plenty of examples of parents in this world who simply aren’t worthy of respect. The sixth is the first actually good rule; thou shalt not kill. The seventh, eight and ninth are similarly pretty good rules; don’t cheat on your spouse, don’t steal and don’t bear false witness. The tenth is pretty bad, capitalism as a whole is built around the idea that people covet other peoples possessions, and channeling that part of human nature in a productive way (I’m not saying its perfect, just the best we currently have).

So I’d say around 4.2 out of 10, I’d give it a C-. It really could have done without all that stuff about not saying the guys name with a bad attitude and maybe mentioned things about rape and slavery.

Fair points, John. If you take them literally then there is a lot of room for improvement. Perhaps a modified version would go down better? Agreed they don’t really cover respect for others. So switch the top 3 with “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”; “don’t rape anyone” and “don’t enslave your fellow man”. And drop the sabbath thing, but I think respect for elders is a fundamental basis for good society, obviously not blindly followed but in general.

A vast improvement, unfortunately god isn’t accepting rewrites :P.

But seriously you have just demonstrated both the need to interpret rules in the murky morally gray areas that we encounter in the real world, which are precluded by strict and literal morality presented by religions and the necessity of debate over the rules, redefining them to encompass new situations, which in general doesn’t find fertile ground in authoritative systems of thought like religion. As well as the ability to recognize a deficiency in the current rules and amend it as necessary. These are all things we can accomplish as people without divine intervention or the ties of tradition.

So what exactly is the benefit of tying our rules or morality to religion to begin with?

The one basic rule of christianity that would do us all good would be to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That ‘golden rule’ as they used to call it in religion in school was the one that really sunk in with me. All the other stuff about prayer and god existing and being sound and responsible for everything and a small child being capable of sin etc. didn’t really seem to stick. But the golden rule made sense to me. The 10 commandments are a fairly bad starting point I’m afraid. Especially given that they’re fairly obviously written for straight men by straight men. Otherwise is it grand if I or my gay friend covet my neighbour’s husband?

I think they wrote that single rule into 50 Shades of Grey didn’t they?

How about “Harm None”
Sorta covers everything..

Who are you referring to Mick? I didn’t think anyone was being rude. If you are suggesting that people who say that they have stopped believing in “superstitious nonsense” are rude, then I think you are wrong. That is what they believe and they should be allowed to express it openly.

This is a forum for the exchange of ideas after all.

You are quite right, a fall in religious practice does not give people the right to be rude – freedom of speech does.
If, as I have, you had grown up from early teenage years as a non-believing, gay individual, the level of insult and offence you would have had to deal with coming from the overwhelmingly religious environment would have given you the thickness-of-skin to survive a little heated rhetoric in the comments section of a journal.ie article.
That you now feel under pressure because the reported survey suggests that you are no longer the majority is no comfort to me, but the dwindling of the ranks of believers is.
The sooner rationality clears away the cobwebs of superstition, the sooner we can have adult conversations about the human condition, and leave religion for the history books.

Exactly what I’m talking about.

@Max
I don’t have a week to debate you on half of that rant, I know fine well there is no point conducting a debate on the comment section on any forum – nor will I try.

I personally don’t care what you, or anybody else believes – I’m making a point that atheists on boards like this are rude, they show no tolerance whatsoever and they say WITHOUT proof that there is no God for a fact.

The logical atheist would call themselves agnostic, otherwise they are believing something for a fact, without proof.

“That you now feel under pressure because the reported survey suggests that you are no longer the majority is no comfort to me”

Oh and Pressure, what pressure?

Mick, the most offensive comment I can see was from Seán Glennon;

‘I’m actually surprised at the number of anti-theists commenting on this page. They’re no better than racists, homophobes or sexists imho.’

Ironic that such a comment could come from someone who was taught to ‘love thy neighbor’.

Care to quote any comments from above that are “rude” or “so disrespectful and intolerant towards theists”?.
All I can find are valid and justified criticisms aimed at religion in general (and the catholic church in particular).

“A fall in religious practice does not give you all the right to be so disrespectful and intolerant towards theists”

Religions (the two most dominant – catholicism and Islam in particular) are the epitome of intolerance.
The crusades? Inquisitions? Magdalene laundries? Industriasl schools for young boys? historical public shame and social humiliation of non-believers? Utter lack of respect for LGBT communities? Need I go on?

Mick
“The logical atheist would call themselves agnostic, otherwise they are believing something for a fact, without proof.”

Believing something for a fact is a contradiction. Facts are known, not believed. Atheism doesn’t require certainty, it too is a belief. Your statement would suggest that ‘atheists’ can’t actually exist for as long there is no proof that there is no God (ie, you don’t believe in atheists!).
Agnosticism is something altogether different entirely so it is, so it is.

I have no problem with people being atheists… though anti-theism is a bigotry. As a Catholic I can disagree with people of a different faith or non without resorting to discrimination or mockery. Why can’t anti-theists act the same way towards theists?

Similarly I can be a white, straight man without being a racist, homophobic sexist!

“Oh and Pressure, what pressure?”

The pressure that led you to post a defensive comment calling “SOME” atheists “rude, disrespectful and intolerant” while failing to quote any of the rude and intolerant remarks.
I’m not the 1st person to draw attention to the fact that many religious people, when presented with criticism, ignore the substance of the criticism and play the injured victim of atheists’ arrogant intolerance.

Well, you did jut imply that they were immoral and materialistic, which is a ridiculous generalization.

Tbf… I said it wasn’t their fault and that the Church needed to act to win back atheists from the pleasures of hedonism.

Pretty certain now that you’re a troll, Sean.

Ah, right, because anyone who doesn’t belong to the church (which church, Sean?) believes in hedonism? I’d love to explain that to Orthodox Jews. Those party animals.

Seán, you want to reverse any progress that Ireland has made towards being a more secular state. You’ve just claimed that all atheists are hedonists purely because they don’t believe in an omnipotent deity. A more inclusive Irish society, should accept that people do not share the same beliefs, everyone is free to follow a religion and that every religion is open to criticism. Religions should not influence government policy if based on random passages from the bible or their prejudices, hence the need for a more secular state.

I just want to +1 all of the posts by Max Krzyzanowski.

Only a close-minded, hysterical, individual would argue with what he has to say. I for one, don’t hold back on the insults so well, in my critique of religion, all religions.

Religion is dangerous. Insidious.
Proverb 3:5
Trust in the LORD with all your heart; and lean not unto your own understanding.

Why?

Its worrying alright Sean, worrying for the church as it watches its power (which is made up of its numbers) slip through its fingers after years of hiding its dirty truths that were known about all the way upto the Vatican.

How upsetting it must be for them to watch this power slip away, how they continue to care little for the people they have hurt.

Because atheists (note it is a small “a”) are materialists in your eyes Seán? I’m an atheist, but I value my family, my friends and my intellectual life more than a new camera or a new car.

Religious types tend to like to paint things in black and white though.

It could also be that the poorer are not as well educated, and like to believe in mystical beings…

I think it’s probably more to do with the level of education received.

Mmm it doesn’t actually prove that rich people are not religious because they are materialistic. There are many other elements that would need to be taken into account to make a statement like that for example rich people tend to have a better education for one! Again this just highlights the need for people to use logical and rational thinking, which is not something that religion or the church really encourages!

Correlation does not equal causation. Look at Bill Gates, absolutely loaded but gives millions upon millions to charity and spends his free time trying to eradicate polio. You can hardly term that materialism.

Unfounded nonsense from start to finish, Sean.

Theres no denying that the decrease in mass attendance corresponds to the increase in wealth… its just a real pity that people feel they don’t need God in their lives and that money and material objects can replace his love. Its not that bad for the Church but is disastrous for the numerous Irish people who’ve been tricked into turning their back on faith.

This is why both the State and Church need to remain partners in helping rebuild Irish society.

Which god is that Sean Apollo, Zeus or some other genocidal fairy?

I’m actually surprised at the number of anti-theists commenting on this page. They’re no better than racists, homophobes or sexists imho.

As Stephanie said, Sean, correlation does not equal causality.

But would you have us go back to the halcyon days of the 50s, Sean, when nobody had anything? When the blackclad despot ruled from the pulpit, when Christian brothers disciplined with hurleys and paedophiles flourished with impunity?

Ah yes! Those were the days!

“causation”

It’s not hate Sean it’s ridicule….well earned ridicule at that.

Sky fairys…ha ha such childish nonsense.

Seán, the church has been disastrous for the Irish people, wielding it’s power to keep people subjective, ignorant and subservient for so long. Worship of material goods is just as bad as worship of fictional deities. It’s all misguided idolatry.

Separation of church and state is one of the cornerstones of any republic, not to mention we now live in a multi-cultural society. Are you suggesting we go back to Dev’s priest run joke a state?

Also, to say that we’ve been “tricked” into turning our backs on the church is galling to say the least and grossly insulting to people’s intelligence.

Wealth is a factor in the rise in aethism, but science is, I believe, a more important one. We’re reaching a stage where we don’t need God to explain the universe. Ockham’s razor, all things being equal, go with the less complex explanation. We don’t need an unquantifiable God to explain why the sun comes up or why it rains.

lol – I’m fairly sure this was a joke response by Mr. Glennon! Although I guess he should have put it between braces so that people didn’t get confused.

Pretty sad that there are still people who have not opened their eyes yet. But one day soon Ireland will be free from the Catholic mafia. That’ll be nice.

“Its not that bad for the Church but is disastrous for the numerous Irish people who’ve been tricked into turning their back on faith.”
Is is you that has been tricked Seán!

“I’m actually surprised at the number of anti-theists commenting on this page. They’re no better than racists, homophobes or sexists imho.”
Arent you anti-atheism? Wouldn’t that brand you as bad as racists, homophobes or sexists? What a tulip you are Seán!

Well, Sean, before you feel that you’re discriminated against a theist, perhaps you should stop claiming all atheists are without morality. I’m not an atheist, but as a member of a minority religion, I think it’s absolutely ridiculous to not see a problem with deciding that one church (which church exactly, Sean) should be linked with the state. Freedom of religion shouldn’t just apply to a majority religion. It should apply to minorities and non-believers.

@Sean- you have to be joking?

If anything, I believe that the decrease in faith in the church for wealthy people is not because they are more materialistic, but more so realistic. They have possibly gotten better education in a school that is not influenced by the catholic church.

People in lower class areas tend to have more faith in “GOD” as they have little else and want to believe that one day the will be rewarded for it.

In general, I’m sure as the social classes lower so does the level of intelligence.

If anyone was to claim that they were Jesus in 2012, they would be signed in somewhere!

Seán, at the end of the day the Bible says we will be called insane and we will be persecuted for our beliefs. We can’t argue with them and yes it is sad. Again, the big thing I hear is ‘The Catholic Church did this and that’.

Listen, wether your a believer or not, people need to know Christianity (The New Testament) is all about loving your neighbour, not judging ANYONE for ANYTHING they’ve done. Forgiveness. Peace. All the things people strive for in life.

If people are genuinely interested to see how God has worked in some famous people’s lives (one of the baldwins is in here too) check out ‘I am Second’ on YouTube. And if you don’t believe, fine. But see the good the Bible has done in these people’s lives.

“I’m actually surprised at the number of anti-theists commenting on this page. They’re no better than racists, homophobes or sexists imho.”

It’s very simple,people are leaving the church because of people that comment like the one above.The Catholic church is an evil institution,and people that support it are no better than pedophiles(See how that works Séan?)

@ ru ni digs- Exactly. They’re all bitter towards anyone with different beliefs, yet they will listen to their local paedophile telling them how to live their life.

Er Sean, be careful.. You are passing judgement, pretty sure Jesus said you weren’t supposed to do that.

Also, you complain about anti theists and say that they are as bad as racists, yet you are quite negative and make sweeping generalisations about them, a tad hypocritical would you not agree?
Does a non Christian (me) have to remind you what Jesus said about hypocrites? I’ll give you a clue, He wasn’t too fond of them..

I have no trouble with anyone believing whatever they like, but I have had far too much experience of Christians who talk the talk but don’t walk the walk, apparently blissfully unaware that the religion they chose dooms them to a fate worse than the non believers for being hypocrites..

Sean Im on the dole & lost everything in the crash. What category would you put me in as Im an atheist. Like most people you dont even know what an atheist is. Do some research its enlightening to be free from a biggoted spiteful vengeful & self serving god. A man made god with man like insecurities.

well the others described themselves as religious from reading a book also… only one is made up and the other one is full of facts and logical reasoning.

I wonder how many describe themselves as athiests because there is no god?

and Hawkins.

Ask a simple question and a bunch of proselytizing atheists turn up.

Well I welcome the rains of fire.

@Dave – I think you should rather say ‘no credible evidence of a God’.
Nothing is knowable with absolute certainty (yet!) in this area.

Gagsy, did you mean that assuming that everything in the universe, both physical and metaphysical, can be described empirically then no empirical evidence has yet been discovered to convince the most sceptical empiricist of the existence of a God?

Damocles – I beg your pardon?

It seemed pretty clear to me, what didn’t you understand?

just the bit where you ask:
“did you mean that assuming that everything in the universe, both physical and metaphysical, can be described empirically then no empirical evidence has yet been discovered to convince the most sceptical empiricist of the existence of a God?”
The rest was clear.

But to try and aswer what I think the question might have been, Yes, but also there is no empirical proof of the non-existence of God.

Well there’s no empirical proof either way. Does this not raise the concern that the empiricist’s assumption, i.e. that everything in the universe, both physical and metaphysical, can be described empirically, might be flawed?

Yes Gagsy, but isn’t the point of science to prove something exists? As opposed to proving a negative, ie the non existence of something. For instance, how do you prove the Easter Bunny doesn’t exist? You can’t.

Read Douglas Adams’ Hitchhiker’s Guide for the answer. The Babel Fish part. Explains it all.

“As opposed to proving a negative, ie the non existence of something.”

Proof by contradiction is a powerful tool in science.

Of course all assumptions, for as long as they are assumptions may be flawed. Thats why they are only assumptions and not facts.
Maybe what you’re getting at is that some concepts, hypotheses or answers may be ultimately unprovable or unknowable but if its not too circular I would suggest that we’ll never know whether something is ultimately unknowable.

Damocles you’ve been owned. Get over it

Not up to you’re usual quality damocles, tommorow maybe.

Proof by negation is a pretty useless tool in science. It’s a useful tool in mathematics of logic.

Conor,

I don’t believe that’s the case. The empiricist’s assumption is frequently overlooked by empiricists.

Anyone that would describe themselves as an atheist after reading ‘The God Delusion’ is a nutter! If you even deem to address the issue of spirituality, even in the interest of discrediting it, you acknowledged it. For a true atheist the matter of spirituality would not even reach into the conciousness, the beliefs of others would be beyond your comprehension even to the point of constructing an argument against them…
Dawkins just likes to sell books.

In fairness John, thats quite the pile of abstract nonsense you’re spouting there.
To summarise to be an atheist you have to be a blinkered fundamentalist not even capable of considering the alternative?
Its hard to see any basis for that unusual premise.
Why would atheists have to be so singularly narrow-minded?

I’m interested by the red thumbs to my comment. I’m not an atheist, I’m a secular non-believer. I have never understood belief in spirituality and in consequence can’t construct an argument against it – or indeed see the need to. I do however have strong objection to moral and ethical strictures arising out of others spiritual beliefs becoming part of the civil structures of the state.

@ John – “I’m not an atheist, I’m a secular non-believer”, sorry but am I missing something, what’s the difference?

Brian:
Secularism: The principle of separation between government institutions and the persons mandated to represent the State from religious institutions.

Atheism: There is disagreement as to how best to define and classify atheism contesting what supernatural entities it applies to, whether it is an assertion in its own right or merely the absence of one, and whether it requires a conscious, explicit rejection.

Unbeliever: Someone who refuses to believe (as in a divinity)

I would describe myself as atheist because I believe a god doesn’t exist.

If asked about scientific proof of the existence or non-existence of a god I would describe myself as agnostic.

Scientifically it appears highly unlikely that a god doesn’t exist. Proofs and belief are very different.

@Damocles

I describe myself as an atheist because of what I was taught during my Catholic upbringing (parents and school). I stopped believing years before I ever even heard of Dawkins.There were just too many contradictions and unanswered questions (just to clarify, telling me ‘that’s why it’s called faith’ or ‘it says so in the Bible’ is not an sufficient answer). I couldn’t understand why women and homosexuals were seen as lesser beings – as long as women cannot be ordained based soley on their gender, it’s discrimination, any ‘explanation’ from the church has been pathetic. I tried to force myself to pray harder and be a better catholic because that’s what I was brought up as. It wasn’t until an older cousin mentioned that she stopped believing in God (just mentioned, nothing more) that I realised I didn’t have to force myself to believe (which defeats the notion of faith anyway). Very liberating feeling. She was the first Atheist I ever came across. Before that people were either Catholic, a different religion, or bad Catholics i.e. too lazy to go to Mass on a Sunday.

The abuses and subsequent cover up by member of the church at all levels, the ridiculous stance on contraception (especially the fact that the pope puts his own beliefs ahead of the welfare of millions of people affected by AIDs), the fact that priests and nuns are subject to much harsher punishment by the Vatican for putting social issues ahead of promoting the church’s core beliefs or trying to report abuses than those who abused and raped children, the anti-gay marriage (or gay anything) stance, the hold they have on the Irish education system and the hold they try to have on all members of society, not just Catholics etc… are just things that reinforced my atheism. And as far as the Catholic chuch is concerned I’m the one with no morals….

I agree with what Donnagh said above, as far as I’m concerned the onus is on those making the claim that something exists to prove it – Russell’s teapot analogy.

Someone suitable respected ( I forget exactly who ) once said that an agnostic is an atheist with a university degree. These days I think it makes more sense to flip it around – an atheist is an agnostic wearing a pair of metaphorical skinny jeans.

@John a-theist = non-theist, i.e someone who does not believe in a Devine creator……no?

Actually, whether a creator or not is irrelevant.

Theist = having belief in a single or several gods
Atheist = being without belief in a god or gods

@John – amazing you’re so anxious to discredit Dawkins when a lot of what he as actually said makes sense.

I know it’s maybe not the hipster thing to take something from writings which have become popular but I liked Dawkins even before he became soooooooo commercial. I was the same with Coldplay…… (Please tell me you can see the joke in this?)

Dawkins has certainly opened the door a little for people to actually explore faith and question what their faith is based on. The fact that people should read more than just Dawkins does not give anyone licence to rubbish his work.

Despite the fact that he in has in no way been extremely public or pushy about his beliefs I found Neil deGrasse Tyson to be massively refreshing, especially after exposure to Dawkins. Certainly for anyone who wonders if atheism is something to be pitied as believing in nothing, he definitely offers ideas that made me feel that there is more to life than afterlife.

Tomy
I find your definition of atheism rather simplistic. If you examine the term further you will find it is less easily defined. That’s why I prefer to describe my self as a ‘non-believer’.
Dawkins may indeed have opened the door for those that want to explore faith beyond the schoolroom or sunday school and his writings may be of value in that regard. I can’t say one way or the other ’cause I never have believed and feel no need to explore those avenues nor should any other ‘non-believer’ as to us it is simply irrelevant. That is why I contend that the writings of Dawkins or such like, in-so-far as true ‘un-believers’ are concerned, are irrelevant.

It doesn’t matter how simplistic you find it – it’s accurate.

So far as I’m concerned there is a lot more in how someone acts on their belief or non-belief that is important.

Shouty people are simply shouty people, whether with or without faith.

Understanding people are understanding people, who can both recognise that belief is not really a choice.

I’m not really interested in the petty semantics of the situation, much more interested in not telling impressionable children who simply haven’t developed the cognitive ability to consider an alternative, that their atheist/unmarried/gay/other-faith family-member/friend/neighbour will burn in hell.

@Damocles. Seriously?
Are you trying to equate Dawkins wealth with the untold wealth of the RCC. The gold bullion, the priceless art, the Sovereign State and the Swiss bank accounts? Small difference wouldn’t you say?

Furthermore, Atheists don’t follow Dawkins like he was a prophet? He speaks up FOR Atheists. You never mentioned Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, Jillette et al.

I’ve noticed that most theists haven’t even read the bible, whereas there are many prominent Atheists who have and they actually recommend reading it, as it sure to turn a theist to an Atheist.

You did see the bit where I pointed out where I was talking about Dawkins Atheists in particular?

Who are these Dawkins Atheists?
Is it anyone who has read his books or is it a formal club or is a term you’ve created to describe a certain type of proseletysing (possibly misspelt) atheist?
I always enjoy a good theoIogical debate on this particular topic and I would agree there may be a thin line between evangelising and participating robustly in a sensible debate. There are clearly atheists on both sides of the line here.
I don’t feel the need to evangelise anyone over to the liberated world of atheism but I do however think it is a worthwhile exercise to encourage and challenge people to examine rationally how they have arrived at their beliefs.

God bless us one and all.

is it a term you’ve created to describe a certain type of proselytizng atheist?

Yes. One who seems to be in love with the works of Richard Dawkins.

Gagsy, may be of interest: http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/please-god-spare-us-the-born-again-atheists/

I had a quick read of it.
Of course extremism and any such absolutism has no place in a rational debate.
I’m not sure that Dawkins deserves to be lumped into this though. I have a read a few of his books including the God Delusion but also his more bread and butter stuff on evolution. He is after all primarily a biologist and evolution is what writes best about.
I did find the God Delusion interesting and while his writing style can often be patronisingly didactic (made me wish I didn’t agree with much of what he said) it is hard to find fault with the force of his logic.
So he has written a book which has persuaded many through logically and persuasively presented scientific arguments – that some extremists may misinterpret and misuse this as a handbook to ridicule others is lamentable but I would contend does not in general describe most ‘informed’ atheists.

It does, however, describe most shouty proselytizing atheists that one finds on the Interweb.

Yeah ok, you’re probably right.

Although in fairness “shouty and proselytizing” describes quite a lot of pople who express opinions on the internet on any range of topics.

Not us though, we’re both great.

Not us though, we’re both great.

Oh yeah.