Do you believe in God, deities, souls, spirits & things like that?

[Tiger]

Love, Tiger? Well, It's not worked for you. You are possibly the most embittered and hateful person on the entire forum. I cannot imagine you being beneficent in any capacity whatsoever. Your problem, I think, is that you imagine that everybody is the same standard of person that you are--which is someone who needs the promise of heaven and the threat of hell to prevent you from being an unmitigated sociopath and general piece of shit. This is how we are different.

I need neither incentive nor threat of punishment to be a good person. You do.

It’s telling how quickly you resort to emotional outbursts when confronted with a worldview you can’t quite handle

It’s as if your mind short-circuits whenever you’re faced with ideas beyond your narrow, self-made moral framework. You accuse me of needing the promise of heaven or threat of hell to be moral—how quaint. What this reveals is that you see morality as something that can be reduced to personal whims. But if moral behavior is simply about not being a “sociopath,” why stop there? You’re essentially saying the "good" is whatever suits your preferences, with no objective basis at all.

But here’s the rub: every time you try to argue your case, you rely on universal moral judgments—implying that some things are right and others wrong, as though morality were indeed grounded in something greater than mere human opinion. You call me “embittered,” yet it's you who, unable to defend your own system, resort to character assassination rather than engage with the substance of the argument.

At least I’m not pretending that the arbitrary moral code you cling to somehow has a foundation. You accuse me of lacking benevolence, but it’s your system that has no coherent reason for being benevolent in the first place. When there’s no transcendent moral law, every action becomes meaningless, and personal attacks are all that remain. That’s the emptiness of your worldview—too shallow to provide real answers, too fragile to stand up to reason.

Presumably that’s why you turned to Buddhism.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Your Amazon basin analogy, though popular with armchair anthropologists, fails to grapple with the reality of universal moral intuitions. Yes, customs and practices vary across cultures, but the core principles—valuing life, rejecting cruelty, seeking justice—are strikingly consistent. These are not arbitrary cultural artifacts but evidence of an objective moral order written on the human heart.

In the Amazon basin they performed child sacrifice FFS.

 

[Tiger]

In the Amazon basin they performed child sacrifice FFS.

What does that prove Myles?

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

"Valuing life, rejecting cruelty, seeking justice"

 

[Fishalt]

Debating atheists is always repetitive. The same tired examples trotted out ad nauseum. It’s like you’ve all been given the same memo.

Atheism is the intellectual equivalent of staring into a void and calling it profound. The belief that we are cosmic accidents, the product of blind chance and random forces, is the dullest form of thinking imaginable—nothing more than a self-imposed prison of meaninglessness.

Your assertion that existence lacks intrinsic meaning, and that humanity “embroiders” meaning onto chaos is a philosophy of despair, not reason. If the world were truly chaotic and devoid of order, how do you account for the human mind’s consistent ability to discern universal truths, construct systems of reason, and intuit moral laws that transcend time and culture? Chaos does not produce coherence; it produces fragmentation. The very act of your argument—using logic to defend a worldview of purposelessness—undermines your premise. Reason itself requires a foundation beyond chaos, and your position is a house of cards, collapsing under its own contradiction.

Your Amazon basin analogy, though popular with armchair anthropologists, fails to grapple with the reality of universal moral intuitions. Yes, customs and practices vary across cultures, but the core principles—valuing life, rejecting cruelty, seeking justice—are strikingly consistent. These are not arbitrary cultural artifacts but evidence of an objective moral order written on the human heart. If morality were as subjective as you claim, then no act, no matter how heinous, could be condemned. Yet even you cannot escape the instinct to make value judgments—ironically proving the very moral law you deny.

Conceding that the biblical worldview offers purpose and meaning, while denying its truth, reveals your intellectual schizophrenia. If the biblical framework provides the coherence, purpose, and meaning that you claim to admire, why reject it for a worldview of purposeless chaos? You marvel at the “miraculous breath” of life, yet your atheistic framework reduces that miracle to a meaningless chemical reaction. Your awe is borrowed from a worldview you profess to despise. Without God, your miracle is a delusion, your morality is fiction, and your argument is nothing more than an elaborate act of self-deception.

Where's the void? Have you looked out a window lately? Life is happening, Tiger. All the time. One is only purposeless if they have no purpose. I have many. Many goals, many objectives, many responsibilities to many people. I do not need faith in an Abrahamic God to have these. Essentially your argument is a kind of spiritual dictate or authoritarianism: There is either your particular cosmology and brand of faith, or there is nihilism. A very backward, juvenile binary. This is ridiculous and simply not how reality plays out.

I also didn't claim to admire the Bible. It is more or less the same as every other holy text. It must be cherry-picked. Some parts of it are moral, some are not. It is simply another reflection of the myths and ethos of its place and time.

 

[Tiger]

Did I say that anybody did?


You seem incapable of reading

All you’ve said is that you’re an atheist.

How about I suggest your position on the meaning of life and you say whether it’s accurate or not?

Here goes…


“I James Dawson as an atheist believe I am a cosmic accident and that life has no meaning. I will eat and shit for a years and then I will die. The end”

Is that accurate James?

 

[AN2]

All you’ve said is that you’re an atheist.

How about I suggest your position on the meaning of life and you say whether it’s accurate or not?

Here goes…


“I James Dawson as an atheist believe I am a cosmic accident and that life has no meaning. I will eat and shit for a years and then I will die. The end”

Is that accurate James?

No, that's not what I said.

I said that you wouldn't agree that the meaning of life is the meaning of life if it didn't concur with your personal God story

True or not?

 

[Tiger]

No, that's not what I said.

I said that you wouldn't agree that the meaning of life is the meaning of life if it didn't concur with your personal God story

True or not?

Instead of saying what your view on the meaning of life isn’t, how about saying what it is, or if there is any meaning at all.

 

[Fishalt]

It’s telling how quickly you resort to emotional outbursts when confronted with a worldview you can’t quite handle

It’s as if your mind short-circuits whenever you’re faced with ideas beyond your narrow, self-made moral framework. You accuse me of needing the promise of heaven or threat of hell to be moral—how quaint. What this reveals is that you see morality as something that can be reduced to personal whims. But if moral behavior is simply about not being a “sociopath,” why stop there? You’re essentially saying the "good" is whatever suits your preferences, with no objective basis at all.

But here’s the rub: every time you try to argue your case, you rely on universal moral judgments—implying that some things are right and others wrong, as though morality were indeed grounded in something greater than mere human opinion. You call me “embittered,” yet it's you who, unable to defend your own system, resort to character assassination rather than engage with the substance of the argument.

At least I’m not pretending that the arbitrary moral code you cling to somehow has a foundation. You accuse me of lacking benevolence, but it’s your system that has no coherent reason for being benevolent in the first place. When there’s no transcendent moral law, every action becomes meaningless, and personal attacks are all that remain. That’s the emptiness of your worldview—too shallow to provide real answers, too fragile to stand up to reason.

Presumably that’s why you turned to Buddhism.

Of course I'm relying on moral and ethical judgements. These are the only means we have of negotiating existence. What I am saying is that I reject the orthodoxy of Christian morality. Not wholesale, mind you. But definitely on balance. What I do reject utterly (and this is actually what you want) is any situation in which your particular brand of faith imposes its version of morality, or moral standards, upon society through legislation--i.e, a theocracy.I do not want extremist Christians organizing society and the world in general, thanks.

I wouldn't say I have a "System", really. If I do, the reason for it being benevolent, or the goal of that, would be to reduce suffering. That is the purpose if there is one. Suffering is, Tiger, a truly universally shared experience. Not just with respect to our species. But most of them.

Edit: Not a Buddhist. Many parts of it I fundamentally disagree with. What I do like about it, I like a lot, however.

 

[AN2]

It’s telling how quickly you resort to emotional outbursts when confronted with a worldview you can’t quite handle

It’s as if your mind short-circuits whenever you’re faced with ideas beyond your narrow, self-made moral framework.

You accuse me of needing the promise of heaven or threat of hell to be moral—how quaint.

It's a logical inference of you accusing people who don't believe your personal God story of not being moral. You do it all the time

What this reveals is that you see morality as something that can be reduced to personal whims. But if moral behavior is simply about not being a “sociopath,” why stop there? You’re essentially saying the "good" is whatever suits your preferences, with no objective basis at all.

But here’s the rub: every time you try to argue your case, you rely on universal moral judgments—implying that some things are right and others wrong, as though morality were indeed grounded in something greater than mere human opinion. You call me “embittered,” yet it's you who, unable to defend your own system, resort to character assassination rather than engage with the substance of the argument.

At least I’m not pretending that the arbitrary moral code you cling to somehow has a foundation. You accuse me of lacking benevolence, but it’s your system that has no coherent reason for being benevolent in the first place. When there’s no transcendent moral law, every action becomes meaningless, and personal attacks are all that remain. That’s the emptiness of your worldview—too shallow to provide real answers, too fragile to stand up to reason.

Presumably that’s why you turned to Buddhism.

 

[AUL LAD]

Existence has no intrinsic meaning nor point, We embroider meaning on the world, as a species. The natural state of the world and man is not orderly, nor moral. We apply value judgements and moral systems to chaos. It is artificial reasoning. Morality is subjective. It is culturally bound. You have the moral code you do because of the culture and time in which you live, and have lived. If you were born in the Amazon basin to an uncontacted tribe four hundred years ago, you would have a completely different set of moral standards, value judgements, and beliefs and customs.

I agree that the biblical world view of humanity venerates humanity and offers the individual purpose, and meaning. But it does not follow that this makes it true. Every religion and indeed cult offers those things. And quite the contrary; I fully accept that every breath I draw as an atheist is miraculous. I do not hate life., or existence. It is not vacuous. I am extremely grateful for it.

i don't think you are an atheist and i say that with kindness as you have displayed your curiosity and the depth of your curiosity shows a significant intellect which suspects a great deal more possibly than you are prepared to admit .
to help others in our discussion who climb into a trench and take pot shots at us --you should examine Seamus Heaney .
this man wrote and expressed OUR thoughts in a very spiritual way which was deeply understood the world over and he deserved his Nobel prize .
you could say he got his prize for communication of the poetry of our God/consciousness which we know is there waiting for us but not accessible by us
and we cannot explain why we think we have always understood/believe what he has downloaded for us .
i will give you all an example .
on his tombstone in Bellaghy is inscribed .
WALK ON AIR
AGAINST YOUR BETTER JUDGEMENT.
he quoted these lines during the Nobel ceremony and the international press asked what did they mean .
and this will help you discover a little about God also .
the words mean go for it-- overcome your two advisors the left and right side of the brain-- and somebody else is acknowledged to be present to allow YOU to take charge and go for it.
POETRY SHOULD DWELL BETWEEN THE DREAM WORLD AND THE GIVEN WORLD .
YOU JUST DON'T WANT A PHOTOGRAPH .
AND YOU DON'T WANT FANTASY EITHER .
When he was dying and on his way to the operating theater he knew his time was up and in his last few moments he thought of others and in particular his wife and he texted her a two word message in Latin .
NOLI TIMERE be not afraid .
he was not an atheist either but the worlds greatest wordsmith could not forge the words to describe god or tell anyone what religion to follow .

 

[Tiger]

Of course I'm relying on moral and ethical judgements. These are the only means we have of negotiating existence. What I am saying is that I reject the orthodoxy of Christian morality. Not wholesale, mind you. But definitely on balance. What I do reject utterly (and this is actually what you want) is any situation in which your particular brand of faith imposes its version of morality, or moral standards, upon society through legislation--i.e, a theocracy.I do not want extremist Christians organizing society and the world in general, thanks.

I wouldn't say I have a "System", really. If I do, the reason for it being benevolent, or the goal of that, would be to reduce suffering. That is the purpose if there is one. Suffering is, Tiger, a truly universally shared experience. Not just with respect to our species. But most of them.

Edit: Not a Buddhist. Many parts of it I fundamentally disagree with. What I do like about it, I like a lot, however.

You dismiss Christian morality as though its mere rejection somehow elevates your position in the realm of ethics. What you fail to understand is that Christian morality is not a set of rules for social control—it is a recognition of the moral order. It is not arbitrary, and its enduring relevance comes from the fact that it corresponds to the natural law written in the hearts of men. That’s why it stands the test of time. It has universal application because it’s based on something real, something beyond human invention.

You speak of reducing suffering, but what exactly does that mean? According to whose standard? Who decides what suffering is worthy of alleviation and what actions are benevolent?

If morality is simply a construct, then your morality is no more valid than the next man’s. History is replete with examples of “benevolent” actions that have caused untold suffering, and yet you think your own sense of benevolence is somehow exempt from that legacy? You’re relying on a shaky foundation of moral relativism, where your preferences are passed off as universal truth, with nothing to back them but empty sentimentality.

And this nonsense about fearing “extremist Christians” imposing their views? Spare me. What you really fear is the idea that people might actually believe in something higher than themselves, something that imposes moral accountability. Christianity, at its core, teaches the dignity of the individual and the need for free will in matters of faith. You’re not scared of a theocracy—you’re terrified of a society that recognizes objective moral law, that places responsibility on individuals for their actions, and that challenges the base relativism you cling to like a security blanket. Your moral framework isn’t a coherent system; it’s just a hodgepodge of subjective preferences masquerading as virtue.

 

[Fishalt]

i don't think you are an atheist and i say that with kindness as you have displayed your curiosity and the depth of your curiosity shows a significant intellect which suspects a great deal more possibly than you are prepared to admit .
to help others in our discussion who climb into a trench and take pot shots at us --you should examine Seamus Heaney .
this man wrote and expressed OUR thoughts in a very spiritual way which was deeply understood the world over and he deserved his Nobel prize .
you could say he got his prize for communication of the poetry of our God/consciousness which we know is there waiting for us but not accessible by us
and we cannot explain why we think we have always understood/believe what he has downloaded for us .
i will give you all an example .
on his tombstone in Bellaghy is inscribed .
WALK ON AIR
AGAINST YOUR BETTER JUDGEMENT.
he quoted these lines during the Nobel ceremony and the international press asked what did they mean .
and this will help you discover a little about God also .
the words mean go for it-- overcome your two advisors the left and right side of the brain-- and somebody else is acknowledged to be present to allow YOU to take charge and go for it.
POETRY SHOULD DWELL BETWEEN THE DREAM WORLD AND THE GIVEN WORLD .
YOU JUST DON'T WANT A PHOTOGRAPH .
AND YOU DON'T WANT FANTASY EITHER .
When he was dying and on his way to the operating theathre he knew his time was up and in his last few moments he thought of others and in particular his wife and he texted her a two word message in latin .
NOLI TIMERE be not afraid .
he was not an atheist either but the worlds greatest wordsmith could not forge the words to describe god or tell anyone what religion to follow .

I'm an atheist in the sense that I can't verify the existence of deities with any sense I have, and therefore I do not subscribe to the major religions thereof.

 

[Fishalt]

You dismiss Christian morality as though its mere rejection somehow elevates your position in the realm of ethics. What you fail to understand is that Christian morality is not a set of rules for social control—it is a recognition of the moral order. It is not arbitrary, and its enduring relevance comes from the fact that it corresponds to the natural law written in the hearts of men. That’s why it stands the test of time. It has universal application because it’s based on something real, something beyond human invention.

You speak of reducing suffering, but what exactly does that mean? According to whose standard? Who decides what suffering is worthy of alleviation and what actions are benevolent?

If morality is simply a construct, then your morality is no more valid than the next man’s. History is replete with examples of “benevolent” actions that have caused untold suffering, and yet you think your own sense of benevolence is somehow exempt from that legacy? You’re relying on a shaky foundation of moral relativism, where your preferences are passed off as universal truth, with nothing to back them but empty sentimentality.

And this nonsense about fearing “extremist Christians” imposing their views? Spare me. What you really fear is the idea that people might actually believe in something higher than themselves, something that imposes moral accountability. Christianity, at its core, teaches the dignity of the individual and the need for free will in matters of faith. You’re not scared of a theocracy—you’re terrified of a society that recognizes objective moral law, that places responsibility on individuals for their actions, and that challenges the base relativism you cling to like a security blanket. Your moral framework isn’t a coherent system; it’s just a hodgepodge of subjective preferences masquerading as virtue.

Actually, it mostly comes from Aquinas. Who to be fair to him was a very good philosopher. But not even he could make a strong case for the existence of an omnipotent God. And yes, morality is complicated, and whether universal compassion is itself morally justified balanced against something like justice is more complicated still. Should a child rapist and murderer, who is suffering in Jail, be dispensed infinite compassion as a consequence of their experience of suffering? The Buddhists would tell you yes. I'm not sure if I agree with them.

Yes, morality is a construct. Pain is not, however. My moral code is quite simple; I help people I believe are worthy of help, and this does come from a place that is authentic and genuine. For example, when I do yard work for my elderly neighbour at no cost, because her adult children are selfish pieces of shit who do nothing for her whatsoever, I am doing this knowing I won't be paid, and I do it without expectation of reward or punishment for having done so at the end of my life. I do it because I don't want her to be socially embarrassed. I do it quite simply because it is a good thing to do. And this is more work than you think. I'm doing this in Australia. In summer. Not the gentle clime of Ireland.

I'm not sure if I've ever met a Christian who didn't simply use the faith as a means of personal abrogation and absolution. It's a means of outsourcing personal culpability and blame. It's a very easy thing to throw one's hands up and say, 'Well, I fucked up, but we're all sinners. and God loves me anyway, so long as I recognize that I'm a piece of shit and apologize, I'm doing my bit, and I'm going to paradise'. "God's in control", "Sky daddy will take care of it" Yada Yada. If anything, Christianity facilitates unconscionable behaviour. This takes no courage. Christians purport to have high moral standards, but in my experience, this does translate into any meaningful action. Frankly I can't imagine you doing anything to help anyone, Tiger. Perhaps family members, and friends. But not beyond that.

Moral Law cannot ever be objective, and I certainly don't want people such as yourself defining what that might be.

 

[Fishalt]

Of course there are things that are objectively wrong. Are you clowns really saying that it's not objectively wrong to rape and murder a child? Were Ian Brady and Myra Handley not objectively evil filth but only subjectively evil because they lived during a time when their acts were frowned upon?

I don't think anybody is arguing that some things aren't objectively wrong morally. But a total system of objective morality that could be universally adhered to cannot exist and is impossible. The Micks would have you believe that both contraception and abortion are evil. Make that make sense.

 

[AN2]

Of course there are things that are objectively wrong. Are you clowns really saying that it's not objectively wrong to rape and murder a child?

According to Drooper, that's what someone who doesn't believe his personal God story would say. And it's the only thing that's stopping him.

 

[Fishalt]

Abortion is clearly evil and objectively wrong. Killing a perfectly healthy unborn child in the womb is objectively wrong.

It's your attitude of "well, nothing's objectively wrong" that enables people (libtards) to justify killing unborn children on a mass scale.

This is what I mean. Perfectly healthy, perhaps. What about a foetus is going to be born profoundly disabled? Something like Zika babies? What about a pregnancy that is caused by rape? What stage of pregnancy are we talking about?

This is what I mean. Morality is complicated. I am thankful I do not live in a world in which Catholics get to implement social policy.

 

[AN2]

Well, no

Well, yes. Have you read what he says (all the time), here's an example from yesterday -

Post in thread 'Fr. Malachi : "An Apostate Pope, Under the Control of Satan?"' https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.co...pe-under-the-control-of-satan.457/post-122786

Of course, Christians like him are a dime a dozen and they don't believe that it could be wrong to cast judgement like that on an infidel

because fundamentally, when you peel it all back, at the very heart of it, the objective basis for right and wrong has to have a religious basis. What other basis is there?

So you agree with Drooper?

 

[Tiger]

Well, yes. Have you read what he says (all the time), here's an example from yesterday -

Post in thread 'Fr. Malachi : "An Apostate Pope, Under the Control of Satan?"' https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.co...pe-under-the-control-of-satan.457/post-122786

Of course, Christians like him are a dime a dozen and they don't believe that it could be wrong to cast judgement like that on an infidel


So you agree with Drooper?

Literally in the post above this is an atheist justifying killing innocent babies

 

[AN2]

Literally in the post above this is an atheist justifying killing innocent babies

And in your warped (and retarded) mind you think that's the "atheist worldview"

 

[Tiger]

And in your warped (and retarded) mind you think that's the "atheist worldview"

It’s an apt juxtaposition to the OP’s contention.

All atheists have one or both feet in the liberal lefties agendas. If they don’t start there, they eventually get there in the end.

If you prod a little bit the mask always slips.

They make for useless nationalists.

 

[Fishalt]

It’s an apt juxtaposition to the OP’s contention.

All atheists have one or both feet in the liberal lefties agendas. If they don’t start there, they eventually get there in the end.

They make useless nationalists.

Disagree. I'm simply not a Christian nationalist.

 

[AN2]

It’s an apt juxtaposition to the OP’s contention.

All atheists have one or both feet in the liberal lefties agendas. If they don’t start there, they eventually get there in the end.

The only thing all atheists are are people who don't believe in God

If you prod a little bit the mask always slips.

They make for useless nationalists.

You think Christians make good nationalists, I mean a Christian nationalist, not a nationalist who's a Christian?

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

i don't think you are an atheist and i say that with kindness as you have displayed your curiosity and the depth of your curiosity shows a significant intellect which suspects a great deal more possibly than you are prepared to admit .

You, Sir, on the other hand have displayed quite a deal of unkindness on this Forum despite your being religious.

 

[AN2]

You've lost me

Which part?

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Abortion is clearly evil and objectively wrong. Killing a perfectly healthy unborn child in the womb is objectively wrong.

So is forcing an incurable person in agonising pain to stay alive for your own warped peace of mind.

Religious people are decidedly immoral when it comes to allowing someone in such a situation end their life.

 

[Tiger]

The only thing all atheists are are people who don't believe in God


You think Christians make good nationalists, I mean a Christian nationalist, not a nationalist who's a Christian?

See James, the problem is that you don’t read books. Your blissfully unaware of your own countries storied history.

Ireland’s greatest nationalist leaders were inseparably Christian, driven by faith that elevated their struggle beyond mere politics. Men like Daniel O’Connell, Padraig Pearse, Thomas Clarke, and Bobby Sands didn’t just fight for Ireland—they fought for a nation under God. Their Catholic faith provided the moral foundation, courage, and vision to resist tyranny and preserve the soul of their people.

O’Connell, "The Liberator," drew from Catholic teaching to demand justice through moral means, rejecting the savagery of violence. Pearse, the poetic martyr of the 1916 Easter Rising, saw Ireland’s independence as a spiritual resurrection, redeeming centuries of colonial oppression. Thomas Clarke, the heart of the rebellion, endured decades of imprisonment sustained by his unwavering faith, exemplifying the quiet fortitude of a true Christian nationalist. Bobby Sands, in his hunger strike, embodied Christ-like sacrifice, showing the world that Ireland’s cause was not merely political but spiritual.

Contrast these giants with modern, secular Ireland, a land unmoored from its Catholic heritage. Today’s leaders lack the moral compass and fortitude of their predecessors. By rejecting its faith, Ireland has lost the heart of its nationalism. Faithless nationalism is a shallow tribalism, unable to inspire or sustain a people.

To those who mock the idea of Christian nationalism, history provides a clear answer: Christians make the best nationalists. They see the nation not as an idol, but as part of God’s order, to be governed by His justice. Without faith, nationalism decays into nihilism, and a nation without God loses its soul.

Ireland’s decline into godlessness explains its failure to produce leaders of vision and courage. The saints, poets, and martyrs who built Ireland knew the truth: a nation that abandons God abandons itself. The choice is stark—return to faith or fade into irrelevance.

This is what the OP was alluding to, however you simply went down the boring route of reminding everyone that you’re Godless and forgot about what the thread was actually about. Probably due to cerebral atrophy.

 

[AN2]

See James, the problem is that you don’t read books. Your blissfully unaware of your own countries storied history.

Ireland’s greatest nationalist leaders were inseparably Christian, driven by faith that elevated their struggle beyond mere politics. Men like Daniel O’Connell, Padraig Pearse, Thomas Clarke, and Bobby Sands didn’t just fight for Ireland—they fought for a nation under God. Their Catholic faith provided the moral foundation, courage, and vision to resist tyranny and preserve the soul of their people.

O’Connell, "The Liberator," drew from Catholic teaching to demand justice through moral means, rejecting the savagery of violence. Pearse, the poetic martyr of the 1916 Easter Rising, saw Ireland’s independence as a spiritual resurrection, redeeming centuries of colonial oppression. Thomas Clarke, the heart of the rebellion, endured decades of imprisonment sustained by his unwavering faith, exemplifying the quiet fortitude of a true Christian nationalist. Bobby Sands, in his hunger strike, embodied Christ-like sacrifice, showing the world that Ireland’s cause was not merely political but spiritual.

Contrast these giants with modern, secular Ireland, a land unmoored from its Catholic heritage. Today’s leaders lack the moral compass and fortitude of their predecessors. By rejecting its faith, Ireland has lost the heart of its nationalism. Faithless nationalism is a shallow tribalism, unable to inspire or sustain a people.

To those who mock the idea of Christian nationalism, history provides a clear answer: Christians make the best nationalists. They see the nation not as an idol, but as part of God’s order, to be governed by His justice. Without faith, nationalism decays into nihilism, and a nation without God loses its soul.

Ireland’s decline into godlessness explains its failure to produce leaders of vision and courage. The saints, poets, and martyrs who built Ireland knew the truth: a nation that abandons God abandons itself. The choice is stark—return to faith or fade into irrelevance.

This is what the OP was alluding to, however you simply went down the boring route of reminding everyone that you’re Godless and forgot about what the thread was actually about. Probably due to cerebral atrophy.

Do you think any of your shite is relevant to today?

 

[Tiger]

Do you think any of your shite is relevant to today?

Wow, what a response—so concise, so cutting, and yet so utterly devoid of substance!

Clearly, forming a thought longer than a sentence isn’t your strong suit, likely because reading books (or anything requiring effort) isn’t either. For those of us who do read, the relevance of my point was literally spelled out in the very post you replied to.

When Ireland was a Christian nation, it produced towering figures like Daniel O’Connell, Padraig Pearse, Thomas Clarke, and Bobby Sands—leaders who will be remembered for centuries as defenders of the Irish soul and people. These men weren’t just nationalists; they were moral visionaries, guided by faith and the conviction that Ireland was more than just land—it was a people with a soul worth fighting for.

And what has godless Ireland produced? Precisely zero nationalist leaders of comparable stature. Instead, we throw street parties to celebrate the killing of Irish babies, trading the sanctity of life for grotesque revelry. The soul of Ireland, once rooted in faith and virtue, is gone, and with it, any hope of producing leaders who stand for something greater than themselves.

So, is this relevant? Absolutely. It explains the chasm between the greatness of our past and the mediocrity of our present. And if you disagree, I’d love to hear your list of modern Irish nationalists who are atheists and match the stature of O’Connell, Pearse, Clarke, or Sands. Go ahead—I’ll wait.

Why don’t the three stooges (Jambo, Myles and Fishalt) make a counter case to the OP, citing evidence?

 

[SwordOfStZip]

Wow, what a response—so concise, so cutting, and yet so utterly devoid of substance!

Clearly, forming a thought longer than a sentence isn’t your strong suit, likely because reading books (or anything requiring effort) isn’t either. For those of us who do read, the relevance of my point was literally spelled out in the very post you replied to.

When Ireland was a Christian nation, it produced towering figures like Daniel O’Connell, Padraig Pearse, Thomas Clarke, and Bobby Sands—leaders who will be remembered for centuries as defenders of the Irish soul and people. These men weren’t just nationalists; they were moral visionaries, guided by faith and the conviction that Ireland was more than just land—it was a people with a soul worth fighting for.

And what has godless Ireland produced? Precisely zero nationalist leaders of comparable stature. Instead, we throw street parties to celebrate the killing of Irish babies, trading the sanctity of life for grotesque revelry. The soul of Ireland, once rooted in faith and virtue, is gone, and with it, any hope of producing leaders who stand for something greater than themselves.
So, is this relevant? Absolutely. It explains the chasm between the greatness of our past and the mediocrity of our present. And if you disagree, I’d love to hear your list of modern Irish nationalists who are atheists and match the stature of O’Connell, Pearse, Clarke, or Sands. Go ahead—I’ll wait.

Why don’t the three stooges (Jambo, Myles and Fishalt) make a counter case to the OP citing evidence?

The majority though of indigenous people in the 26 counties are now not Christian never mind Catholic. The percentage of actual Catholics is somewhere between 15 and 25 per cent depending on how strictly you define someone as a Catholic. Therefore I think organizing politically around Catholicism or a generic Christianity would be politically foolish as things stand. Also Bobby Sands and Thomas Clarke were Catholics, pious Catholics even, and Nationalists but they were not Catholic Nationalists- the same would go for someone like De Valera.

 

[Fishalt]

You, Sir, on the other hand have displayed quite a deal of unkindness on this Forum despite your being religious.

They're all like this, Myles. I've never met one who has lived the teachings of Jesus.

 

[AN2]

Wow, what a response—so concise, so cutting, and yet so utterly devoid of substance!

Clearly, forming a thought longer than a sentence isn’t your strong suit, likely because reading books (or anything requiring effort) isn’t either. For those of us who do read, the relevance of my point was literally spelled out in the very post you replied to.

When Ireland was a Christian nation, it produced towering figures like Daniel O’Connell, Padraig Pearse, Thomas Clarke, and Bobby Sands—leaders who will be remembered for centuries as defenders of the Irish soul and people. These men weren’t just nationalists; they were moral visionaries, guided by faith and the conviction that Ireland was more than just land—it was a people with a soul worth fighting for.

And what has godless Ireland produced? Precisely zero nationalist leaders of comparable stature. Instead, we throw street parties to celebrate the killing of Irish babies, trading the sanctity of life for grotesque revelry. The soul of Ireland, once rooted in faith and virtue, is gone, and with it, any hope of producing leaders who stand for something greater than themselves.

So, is this relevant? Absolutely. It explains the chasm between the greatness of our past and the mediocrity of our present. And if you disagree, I’d love to hear your list of modern Irish nationalists who are atheists and match the stature of O’Connell, Pearse, Clarke, or Sands. Go ahead—I’ll wait.

Why don’t the three stooges (Jambo, Myles and Fishalt) make a counter case to the OP, citing evidence?

Independence, a United Ireland, that's where you think we're at?!

You really are useless

 

[Tiger]

The majority though of indigenous people in the 26 counties are now not Christian never mind Catholic. The percentage of actual Catholics is somewhere between 15 and 25 per cent depending on how strictly you define someone as a Catholic. Therefore I think organizing politically around Catholicism or a generic Christianity would be politically foolish as things stand. Also Bobby Sands and Thomas Clarke were Catholics, pious Catholics even, and Nationalists but they were not Catholic Nationalists- the same would go for someone like De Valera.

Oh look, the ‘ex-proddy’ jumping in bed with the atheists.

It’s not the quantity of Catholics that matters—it’s the quality of their convictions. Throughout history, the greatest movements were driven by dedicated minorities, not apathetic majorities. The Apostles didn’t wait for a supermajority before evangelizing the Roman Empire. Why should Catholic nationalists sit on their hands waiting for modern Ireland to come to its senses?

Secondly, you claim that organizing politically around Catholicism is “politically foolish.” Well, let me remind you that so is organizing around soulless secularism, which has given us a cultural wasteland where Irish heritage is reduced to leprechaun kitsch and economic servitude to Brussels. Politically foolish is pretending that a nation stripped of its spiritual foundation can sustain any meaningful identity. Your proddy roots are sticking out for all to see.

Now, as for Sands, Clarke, and De Valera not being “Catholic nationalists”—let’s clarify. You’re playing semantics. They may not have worn “Catholic Nationalist” on their sleeves, but their faith was the bedrock of their values and the wellspring of their strength. Sands explicitly framed his sacrifice in spiritual terms, comparing himself to Christ. Pearse called the 1916 Rising a spiritual resurrection. Clarke endured decades of British prisons sustained by a deep Catholic faith. And De Valera? The man was guided by Catholic social teaching in shaping Ireland’s constitution.

If your argument is that their nationalism wasn’t exclusively Catholic, fine. But to say their Catholicism wasn’t integral to their vision of Ireland is to rewrite history. The Ireland they fought for—a free, united, and culturally rich Ireland—was inseparable from its Catholic ethos.

So, let me ask you this: if Catholicism was so irrelevant to these leaders, where are the atheist nationalists of equal stature today? Where is the Pearse, the Sands, or even the De Valera of godless Ireland? I’ll tell you—they don’t exist. A nation without faith is a nation without greatness.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

See James, the problem is that you don’t read books. Your blissfully unaware of your own countries storied history. Catholic faith provided the moral foundation, courage, and vision to resist tyranny and preserve the soul of their people.

Your theory is bunkum. You only mentioned Catholic patriots but some of the best patriots were Protestant. Perhaps some didn't believe in God at all but we can't be sure.

You certainly are an O'Connelite, a man whom Collins described as a waster who only achieved the creation of a "Catholic Provence."

 

[Tiger]

Disagree. I'm simply not a Christian nationalist.

Of course, you’re not a Christian nationalist—you grew up in Australia, have never set foot in Ireland, and openly hate Ireland’s Catholic past. You’re about as qualified to comment on Irish nationalism as a kangaroo is to give a lecture on hurling.

I’ve no idea why you are posting on what is supposed to be a nationalist forum. You’re a liberal outsider with no sense of Irish nationalism.

Nationalism isn’t just a political theory; it’s rooted in the lived experience, history, and soul of a people. For centuries, faith—specifically Catholic faith—was the lifeblood of Irish resistance and identity. Dismissing it as irrelevant is not only ahistorical but laughably arrogant coming from someone so detached from the nation they’re opining on.

If you don’t understand why faith matters in Irish nationalism, it’s because you’re looking at it from the outside, without the context, connection, or even the curiosity to appreciate it. That’s fine—you can remain a spectator. But don’t expect to grasp what truly sustains a nation when you’ve rejected the very thing that gave it its heart and soul.

 

[SwordOfStZip]

Now, as for Sands, Clarke, and De Valera not being “Catholic nationalists”—let’s clarify. You’re playing semantics. They may not have worn “Catholic Nationalist” on their sleeves, but their faith was the bedrock of their values and the wellspring of their strength. Sands explicitly framed his sacrifice in spiritual terms, comparing himself to Christ. Pearse called the 1916 Rising a spiritual resurrection. Clarke endured decades of British prisons sustained by a deep Catholic faith. And De Valera? The man was guided by Catholic social teaching in shaping Ireland’s constitution.

The point of the Consitution was that the Catholic Church was NOT made an Established Church, and that other Churches were mentioned. De Valera deliberately blocked people who wanted actual Catholic Nationalism in the Consitution- which in my opinion does not take from his Piety.

 

[Fishalt]

Oh look, the ‘ex-proddy’ jumping in bed with the atheists.

It’s not the quantity of Catholics that matters—it’s the quality of their convictions. Throughout history, the greatest movements were driven by dedicated minorities, not apathetic majorities. The Apostles didn’t wait for a supermajority before evangelizing the Roman Empire. Why should Catholic nationalists sit on their hands waiting for modern Ireland to come to its senses?

Secondly, you claim that organizing politically around Catholicism is “politically foolish.” Well, let me remind you that so is organizing around soulless secularism, which has given us a cultural wasteland where Irish heritage is reduced to leprechaun kitsch and economic servitude to Brussels. Politically foolish is pretending that a nation stripped of its spiritual foundation can sustain any meaningful identity. Your proddy roots are sticking out for all to see.

Now, as for Sands, Clarke, and De Valera not being “Catholic nationalists”—let’s clarify. You’re playing semantics. They may not have worn “Catholic Nationalist” on their sleeves, but their faith was the bedrock of their values and the wellspring of their strength. Sands explicitly framed his sacrifice in spiritual terms, comparing himself to Christ. Pearse called the 1916 Rising a spiritual resurrection. Clarke endured decades of British prisons sustained by a deep Catholic faith. And De Valera? The man was guided by Catholic social teaching in shaping Ireland’s constitution.

If your argument is that their nationalism wasn’t exclusively Catholic, fine. But to say their Catholicism wasn’t integral to their vision of Ireland is to rewrite history. The Ireland they fought for—a free, united, and culturally rich Ireland—was inseparable from its Catholic ethos.
So, let me ask you this: if Catholicism was so irrelevant to these leaders, where are the atheist nationalists of equal stature today? Where is the Pearse, the Sands, or even the De Valera of godless Ireland? I’ll tell you—they don’t exist. A nation without faith is a nation without greatness.

What you're running up against here is essentially Nietzsche's God is dead' problem. It's something we've never solved, nor come close to solving; the fact that without a clear an omnipotent moral authority ( God) as a cultural and spiritual normative standard, we're left to create our moralities and values. Even extremely postmodern philosophers like Baudrillard have struggled to resolve this, and ultimately can't. And I do actually agree with you that the longer God has been dead, the more we've descended into triviality, decadence, absurdity and depravity. The question is whether it's preferable to believe in untruth for the greater good of the world. It's close to what Orwell said: "They may be illusions, but they are very powerful illusions". To go back to Baudrillard, even he, a hyper-postmodernist eventually takes a punt on all this and says the only way out of Disneyland is to return to the primitive, the mystical and spiritual.

So in essence I'm agreeing with your diagnosis, but this does not change the fact that Christianity is simply one moral system, theology and cosmology out of many, and is no more or less valid than any other. Both things can be true, Tiger.

 

[Fishalt]

Of course, you’re not a Christian nationalist—you grew up in Australia, have never set foot in Ireland, and openly hate Ireland’s Catholic past. You’re about as qualified to comment on Irish nationalism as a kangaroo is to give a lecture on hurling.

I’ve no idea why you are posting on what is supposed to be a nationalist forum. You’re a liberal outsider with no sense of Irish nationalism.

Nationalism isn’t just a political theory; it’s rooted in the lived experience, history, and soul of a people. For centuries, faith—specifically Catholic faith—was the lifeblood of Irish resistance and identity. Dismissing it as irrelevant is not only ahistorical but laughably arrogant coming from someone so detached from the nation they’re opining on.

If you don’t understand why faith matters in Irish nationalism, it’s because you’re looking at it from the outside, without the context, connection, or even the curiosity to appreciate it. That’s fine—you can remain a spectator. But don’t expect to grasp what truly sustains a nation when you’ve rejected the very thing that gave it its heart and soul.

My time on sarsfields predates yours, Tiger. I am a nationalist, mid-righter truth to be told. I'm not a liberal (I actually don't think you understand what the term means) in the sense that you're thinking. I am liberal in the sense that I value the liberty of the individual over the power and control of the state, if that's what you mean.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

May the Lord protect us from Tiger's bead-rattling patriotism. Imagine trying to regroup Nationalism around a dead Church in 2024?

 

[SwordOfStZip]

Secondly, you claim that organizing politically around Catholicism is “politically foolish.” Well, let me remind you that so is organizing around soulless secularism, which has given us a cultural wasteland where Irish heritage is reduced to leprechaun kitsch and economic servitude to Brussels. Politically foolish is pretending that a nation stripped of its spiritual foundation can sustain any meaningful identity. Your proddy roots are sticking out for all to see.

Uh it is Protestants in Ireland who have much bigger problems with the seperation of Church and State than Catholics and of course tend to organize politically around Protestantism (this was historically true of the UUP as it is true of the DUP and TUV today). Catholics in Ireland generally do not fuse Religious convictions with ethnic/tribal/national identity while as Prods do have a tendency to do just that.