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

[Myles O'Reilly]

Your proddy roots are sticking out for all to see.

This is the type of A-hole we need to avoid at all costs.

 

[Fishalt]

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

That ship has well and truly sailed. Cultural homogeneity and values-based, rules-enforced order is the only way forward. Things will have to get worse before they get better.

 

[Tiger]

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."

Ah, a drunkard weighing in on historical nuance—always a reliable source. Let’s start with the facts: it’s true that some of Ireland’s patriots were Protestant, but let’s not pretend that they didn’t share a common goal with their Catholic counterparts—Irish freedom. The issue is not whether they were Protestant or Catholic, but whether they stood for a vision of Ireland that was rooted in its people, culture, and yes, its faith.

The difference between O’Connell and those who followed him, like Collins, is clear. O’Connell's approach was a peaceful, morally grounded path that sought justice, not through violence but through a transformation of society. He fought for the rights of the Catholic majority, who were being systematically oppressed. Collins may have been critical of O’Connell’s methods, but that doesn’t erase O’Connell’s monumental achievements, including laying the groundwork for the eventual independence of Ireland. Calling him a "waster" is either a sign of ignorance or an attempt to rewrite history to fit a more convenient narrative.

And yes, O’Connell’s vision created a “Catholic Provence”—that was a necessary response to the centuries of British oppression that specifically targeted Irish Catholics. His “Catholic Provence” wasn’t some exclusionary scheme, but an effort to restore dignity and rights to a people who had been brutalized for generations.
As for those who didn’t believe in God, we can’t know for certain, but one thing is clear: whether Catholic, Protestant, or atheist, the struggle for Irish freedom transcended sectarian lines. What matters is that faith—Catholic or otherwise—has always played a central role in shaping the moral foundation of the nation. That’s what makes Irish nationalism distinct and powerful.

So, next time you take a swing at a historical figure, maybe put down the drink long enough to understand the context. O’Connell’s legacy stands, regardless of your personal view.

 

[AN2]

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.

Yes, let us not forget that Christianity is a (hybrid) Roman invention -


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj0WQDH1Dcc

(Don't watch that Christians you'll have nightmares )

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.

 

[Fishalt]

This is the type of A-hole we need to avoid at all costs.

I don't like the prods because England has no claim over Ireland, and has no justification for being there whatsoever. The English are occupying Ireland.

 

[Tiger]

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

Ah, the tired old dismissal of “bead-rattling patriotism,” as if devotion to faith is somehow less valid or noble than the hollow nationalism of today. The irony is rich—because it’s the very abandonment of faith that has led to the decay of Ireland’s national spirit. You’re just too drunk and poorly educated to realise it.

You mock the Church, but what has Ireland gained by shedding its Catholic roots? A nation adrift, celebrating its own destruction with empty secularism and hollow, self-destructive “progressivism.”

You’re right—trying to regroup nationalism around a “dead Church” is laughable, except for one thing: the Church isn’t dead. It’s alive in the hearts of those who understand that true national strength comes from moral and spiritual foundations, not empty ideologies. The collapse of Irish culture today—its embrace of abortion, its celebration of irreligion, its disregard for the very heritage that made it great—speaks volumes about the failure of godless nationalism.
Nationalism needs faith because faith gives it meaning, purpose, and direction. A nation without God is just a shell, hollow and vulnerable to manipulation. If you want to regroup Ireland in 2024, it needs to return to the very essence of what made it strong: its faith, its identity, and its soul. That’s not “bead-rattling patriotism”—it’s the only kind of patriotism that has ever mattered.

So, tell me: what’s your alternative vision of secular nationalism? How’s it working out for you? Judging by the current state of Ireland, it seems to be doing quite poorly. (I guarantee none of the the 3 stooges will answer this).

 

[AN2]

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.

There was no equivalent of Paisley on the nationalist side

 

[Fishalt]

Ah, a drunkard weighing in on historical nuance—always a reliable source. Let’s start with the facts: it’s true that some of Ireland’s patriots were Protestant, but let’s not pretend that they didn’t share a common goal with their Catholic counterparts—Irish freedom. The issue is not whether they were Protestant or Catholic, but whether they stood for a vision of Ireland that was rooted in its people, culture, and yes, its faith.

The difference between O’Connell and those who followed him, like Collins, is clear. O’Connell's approach was a peaceful, morally grounded path that sought justice, not through violence but through a transformation of society. He fought for the rights of the Catholic majority, who were being systematically oppressed. Collins may have been critical of O’Connell’s methods, but that doesn’t erase O’Connell’s monumental achievements, including laying the groundwork for the eventual independence of Ireland. Calling him a "waster" is either a sign of ignorance or an attempt to rewrite history to fit a more convenient narrative.

And yes, O’Connell’s vision created a “Catholic Provence”—that was a necessary response to the centuries of British oppression that specifically targeted Irish Catholics. His “Catholic Provence” wasn’t some exclusionary scheme, but an effort to restore dignity and rights to a people who had been brutalized for generations.
As for those who didn’t believe in God, we can’t know for certain, but one thing is clear: whether Catholic, Protestant, or atheist, the struggle for Irish freedom transcended sectarian lines. What matters is that faith—Catholic or otherwise—has always played a central role in shaping the moral foundation of the nation. That’s what makes Irish nationalism distinct and powerful.

So, next time you take a swing at a historical figure, maybe put down the drink long enough to understand the context. O’Connell’s legacy stands, regardless of your personal view.

You could say the same thing about the role of horses in the development of European civilizations. Nobody needs a horse in 2024 though.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

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

I'd have never thunk a pious tridentinean scholar such as Tiger would have proved you right so soon...

Ah, a drunkard weighing in on historical nuance.

So, next time you take a swing at a historical figure, maybe put down the drink long enough to understand

 

[Tiger]

I'd have never thunk a pious tridentinean scholar such as Tiger would have proved you right so soon...

Says the person who almost died of alcoholism a few months ago.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

You’re just too drunk and poorly educated to realise it.

Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.

 

[Tiger]

You could say the same thing about the role of horses in the development of European civilizations. Nobody needs a horse in 2024 though.

Ah, yes, comparing the essential role of faith in shaping a nation to the role of horses in transportation—truly a comparison for the ages. But, with all due respect, you’re speaking from the vantage point of an Australian who’s never lived the Irish experience and who likely doesn’t grasp the deep, spiritual roots that Irish nationalism was built upon. The problem with your analogy is that faith is not a tool that’s been replaced by technology. It’s the very soul of a nation.

You don’t need a horse today, but you do need a sense of identity, a moral foundation, and a guiding vision—things that shaped Ireland for centuries. The Irish didn’t fight for their freedom just for the sake of land or politics; they fought for their very soul, their culture, and their faith. Faith isn’t some quaint relic; it’s the bedrock upon which Ireland was built, and replacing it with secularism has only hollowed out the country.

I get that in Australia, nationalism is often more about sporting pride than cultural preservation, but Irish nationalism is a different animal entirely. It’s about defending the core values of the nation—the things that bind it together through faith and sacrifice. And those values cannot be replaced by modern secular ideologies or technology.

So, no, we don’t need horses anymore, but we absolutely need the moral and spiritual foundation that made Ireland great. If you don’t understand that, it’s not surprising—Irish nationalism, built on faith, is something quite foreign to you.

 

[Tiger]

Bringing the discussion back to the OP

A question for the two site alcoholics and the Aussie with no concept of Irish nationalism or its history….

If Irish nationalism today is to be formed without any connection to faith, and instead primarily as a secular movement, could you point to any contemporary figures who could lead it with the same level of conviction, moral clarity, and cultural depth as the Catholic nationalists of the past—O'Connell, Pearse, Clarke, or Sands?

After all, their leadership was built on something far more substantial than political ambition or economic agendas; it was rooted in a vision for Ireland that was spiritual, cultural, and uncompromising.

So, who today can rise to that challenge, in a post-faith Ireland, and do so with the same moral authority?

Can you cite any current secular nationalist political movements which are proving successful?

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Could you point to any contemporary Catholic figures who could do so?

What about this lad:

 

[Tiger]

Could you point to any contemporary Catholic figures who could do so?

What about this lad:

Nope. Ireland is largely Godless and in decline.

Any secular suggestions Myles?

Take all the time that you like. You can even wait and sober up in the morning. I’m just interested to see your vision of secular nationalism.

 

[AN2]

Bringing the discussion back to the OP

A question for the two site alcoholics and the Aussie with no concept of Irish nationalism or its history….

If Irish nationalism today is to be formed without any connection to faith, and instead primarily as a secular movement, could you point to any contemporary figures who could lead it with the same level of conviction, moral clarity, and cultural depth as the Catholic nationalists of the past—O'Connell, Pearse, Clarke, or Sands?

After all, their leadership was built on something far more substantial than political ambition or economic agendas; it was rooted in a vision for Ireland that was spiritual, cultural, and uncompromising.

So, who today can rise to that challenge, in a post-faith Ireland, and do so with the same moral authority?

Can you cite any current secular nationalist political movements which are proving successful?

The only person here talking about "secular nationalism" is you, beed-rattler

 

[Fishalt]

Says the person who almost died of alcoholism a few months ago.

Very Christian of you, Tiger.

If you want to know why it's all on the way out, it's because of people like you.

 

[Tiger]

The only person here talking about "secular nationalism" is you, beed-rattler

So my uneducated friend, walk us through the current crop of nationalist leaders and how their atheism is proving successful?

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Nope. Ireland is largely Godless and in decline. Any secular suggestions Myles?

Nope, me neither. So I guess that makes it a stalemate.

Secularist leaders are absent but so are Catholic ones. Says a lot about your side that you can't top the likes of Panti Bliss for spiritual leadership.

 

[Fishalt]

Ah, yes, comparing the essential role of faith in shaping a nation to the role of horses in transportation—truly a comparison for the ages. But, with all due respect, you’re speaking from the vantage point of an Australian who’s never lived the Irish experience and who likely doesn’t grasp the deep, spiritual roots that Irish nationalism was built upon. The problem with your analogy is that faith is not a tool that’s been replaced by technology. It’s the very soul of a nation.

You don’t need a horse today, but you do need a sense of identity, a moral foundation, and a guiding vision—things that shaped Ireland for centuries. The Irish didn’t fight for their freedom just for the sake of land or politics; they fought for their very soul, their culture, and their faith. Faith isn’t some quaint relic; it’s the bedrock upon which Ireland was built, and replacing it with secularism has only hollowed out the country.

I get that in Australia, nationalism is often more about sporting pride than cultural preservation, but Irish nationalism is a different animal entirely. It’s about defending the core values of the nation—the things that bind it together through faith and sacrifice. And those values cannot be replaced by modern secular ideologies or technology.

So, no, we don’t need horses anymore, but we absolutely need the moral and spiritual foundation that made Ireland great. If you don’t understand that, it’s not surprising—Irish nationalism, built on faith, is something quite foreign to you.

I agree. I'm simply saying that hardline Catholicism isn't an option. The moral guidelines of Christianity could inform those things, and almost definitely should in some respects. But the idea that Ireland will ever return to the Christian conditions of the past is utterly fanciful. It's a non-starter. Faith is not required for any of those three things you have named to take effect. Faith should always be a choice.

 

[Fishalt]

Nope, me neither. So I guess that makes it a stalemate.

Secularist leaders are absent but so are Catholic ones. Says a lot about your side that you can't top the likes of Panti Bliss for spiritual leadership.

I don't think it matters where you go--Ireland, Australia, the US. The first thing we need to do is swing the pendulum back towards the centre. Especially with respect to the media, universities, and institutions. Everything else is moot and commentary before this is achieved.

 

[AN2]

So my uneducated friend,

Do you have to lace every post with ad hom?

walk us through the current crop of nationalist leaders and how their atheism is proving successful?

Who are you talking about?

Again, you've introduced "secular nationalism", I am an ethnic nationalist (Christians welcome). As I suspect many of the historical figures you've mentioned were. Who didn't live in a time of mass immigration of infinity Nigerian Christians.

I've never known you to be a nationalist of any sort, you're simply not present in those threads (except on the odd occasion when you're complaining about Muslims)

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Do you have to lace every post with ad hom?

Seems to be the method used by Latin Mass exponents.

 

[Tiger]

Very Christian of you, Tiger.

If you want to know why it's all on the way out, it's because of people like you.

Oh, of course—I’m the reason Christianity is "on its way out." That’s a neat little deflection to avoid the truth, isn't it? You bring up cutting your elderly neighbor's grass like it’s some monumental moral achievement. Typical of the godless: the tiniest act of decency becomes a virtue to be paraded about. It’s almost as though these acts are only valid if they’re plastered across social media for validation, as if the applause of strangers somehow confirms their worth.

Meanwhile, I spent years caring for my mother as she died of cancer, and was the sole person who would bathe my father in his last years. Neither task was glamorous—nor were they done for recognition. No one knew, and no one needed to know. That's the difference between actual kindness, grounded in love and sacrifice, and this superficial “goodness” that’s trotted out for public consumption. Real virtue is not something that demands the spotlight.

But you, like so many in this age of instant gratification, think a public gesture is what counts. The truth is, the religious have long been shown to be more compassionate, more generous, and more self-sacrificial than the irreligious. Studies prove it. This isn't an accident—it's the result of a moral framework built on faith, not self-centered pride.

So, when you say Christianity is dying, just remember: the kindness you seem to value so much is fleeting and hollow without the anchor of faith. It’s fine to claim virtue, but it’s empty when it’s divorced from the deeper values that Christianity instills in people. You can post your charity work online all you want—but real charity, true love, and the kind of kindness that lasts, is done in silence and with no expectation of applause.

 

[AN2]

Very Christian of you, Tiger.

If you want to know why it's all on the way out, it's because of people like you.

I don't think that he should be given a PR job for any forthcoming theocracy

He's not just a proselytizer, he's a dehumaniser of anyone who doesn't believe in his God (along with his pal @Clean and free), they're their own worst enemy really

 

[Fishalt]

Oh, of course—I’m the reason Christianity is "on its way out." That’s a neat little deflection to avoid the truth, isn't it? You bring up cutting your elderly neighbor's grass like it’s some monumental moral achievement. Typical of the godless: the tiniest act of decency becomes a virtue to be paraded about. It’s almost as though these acts are only valid if they’re plastered across social media for validation, as if the applause of strangers somehow confirms their worth.

Meanwhile, I spent years caring for my mother as she died of cancer, and was the sole person who would bathe my father in his last years. Neither task was glamorous—nor were they done for recognition. No one knew, and no one needed to know. That's the difference between actual kindness, grounded in love and sacrifice, and this superficial “goodness” that’s trotted out for public consumption. Real virtue is not something that demands the spotlight.

But you, like so many in this age of instant gratification, think a public gesture is what counts. The truth is, the religious have long been shown to be more compassionate, more generous, and more self-sacrificial than the irreligious. Studies prove it. This isn't an accident—it's the result of a moral framework built on faith, not self-centered pride.

So, when you say Christianity is dying, just remember: the kindness you seem to value so much is fleeting and hollow without the anchor of faith. It’s fine to claim virtue, but it’s empty when it’s divorced from the deeper values that Christianity instills in people. You can post your charity work online all you want—but real charity, true love, and the kind of kindness that lasts, is done in silence and with no expectation of applause.

I'm proud of you for doing those things, Tiger. Many wouldn't have.

It's not like I'm wearing a hoody that has "I cut somebody's Gran's lawn for Free, Faggots" emblazoned on it, and I have no social media accounts. I simply shared that to prove that it's possible to do good without having faith, and that doing good, or the want to do good, does not require faith. For the record...if fucking only it was cutting grass. That's not what we're talking about here. This is removing bamboo, chainsawing acacias, poisoning and hand-weeding in 38C heat and high humidity. There's a reason people charge 60$ an hour and up to do that kind of work in Australia. It's pretty hard graft.

The only people who know I do it for her are her, my partner and I suppose some of the other neighbours, who never mention it because they're probably ashamed of not helping her out themselves.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

The truth is, the religious have long been shown to be more compassionate, more generous, and more self-sacrificial than the irreligious. Studies prove it. This isn't an accident—it's the result of a moral framework built on faith, not self-centered pride.

Why then are they the only ones who insist on someone lingering on for years in excruciating pain if they want to die?

 

[Fishalt]

I don't think that he should be given a PR job for any forthcoming theocracy

He's not just a proselytizer, he's a dehumaniser of anyone who doesn't believe in his God (along with his pal @Clean and free) they're their own worst enemy really

For the record, I actually have no problem with the teachings of Jesus or Christianity as a whole. It's just a case that I never meet any christians who are truly living the teachings of Jesus. From where I stand, it's all just networking, and keeping women very stupid, subservient stupid and breedable. Which I suppose is as noble a goal as any.

 

[Tiger]

For the record, I actually have no problem with the teachings of Jesus or Christianity as a whole. It's just a case that I never meet any christians who are truly living the teachings of Jesus. From where I stand, it's all just networking, and keeping women very stupid, subservient stupid and breedable. Which I suppose is as noble a goal as any.

Huh?

Do you live in some ‘Hicksville’ town in Oz?

It’s fascinating that you’ve managed to isolate yourself in such a strange, closed-off world where you’ve convinced yourself that Christianity is all about “networking” and keeping women “stupid and subservient.” It’s almost as if you’ve constructed an entirely different reality, one where the very teachings of Jesus are reduced to caricature and distortion. Sounds more like some backward Protestant town in America.

I don’t know what part of Australia you live in, however, the Christians I know, in the real world, are the most generous, compassionate people you’ll meet. I’ve witnessed firsthand how they foster and adopt children, giving them loving homes. I’ve seen Christian business owners treat their employees with dignity and respect, paying fair wages, and prioritizing people over profits. Compare that to secular bosses who frequently engage in the very exploitation you claim is the hallmark of “religion”—people who cut corners, push for layoffs, and treat workers as expendable.

It’s almost laughable that you would hold up a caricature of Christianity while ignoring the immense good it’s done throughout history. Take A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens—Dickens was a Christian, and through his story, he shows us a lesson in kindness, generosity, and the transformation of the human spirit. The kind of transformation that can only come through a deep moral conviction that transcends selfishness. Does that sound like the "networking" and "subservience" you're referring to?

The cartoon world of unkind Christians that you live in is silly. The fact that I repel your shallow arguments, making you angry, makes you seem petty—like someone living in a hick rural area, disconnected from reality.

Where I live, nobody fears practicing Christians. On the contrary, in Europe, it’s the Godless and the violent Muslims that are to be feared. You’re so consumed with a twisted, small-town view of Christians that you’ve failed to see the larger, far more dangerous picture.

 

[Tiger]

Ireland is more or less an atheist country. So why the fuck are you waffling about religious people stopping you from legally topping yourself, ye dope.

I wouldn’t lose much sleep over the opinions of two alco’s and a hick Aussie with outmoded views.

 

[AN2]

I wouldn’t lose much sleep over the opinions of two alco’s and a hick Aussie with outmoded views.

Now his posts aren't even laced with ad hom.. they just are ad hom

 

[Tiger]

Ireland is more or less an atheist country. So why the fuck are you waffling about religious people stopping you from legally topping yourself, ye dope.

Myle’s brain is like a broken pencil - pointless and easily discarded.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

The fact that I repel your shallow arguments, making you angry, makes you seem petty.

You're the one who's been petty here. Why is the only religious person in this debate the one who uses ad hominems?

You don't follow Jesus' teachings very well Sir.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Ireland is more or less an atheist country. So why the fuck are you waffling about religious people stopping you from legally topping yourself, ye dope.

EDIT:

The two religious lads use ad homs...

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

You need to calm down Frank.

 

[Tiger]

You're the one who's been petty here. Why is the only religious person in this debate the one who uses ad hominems?

You don't follow Jesus' teachings very well Sir.

Actually, Jambo and Fishalt have both liberally used Ad Homs my cerebrally challenged friend.

You probably have too.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

But as a follower of Jesus you shouldn't, should you?

 

[AN2]

Actually I'm not really religious.

Ah would you ever give it a rest with that shite

I haven't been to mass for years (apart from funerals and Christmas); I don't pray and I don't think about it that much. But I can see that it's important to people and I respect that. I envy them in a way. I wish I had their faith.

I recognise that Christianity is a force for good and is the basis for our laws and society. For our civilization.

The loss of that is something I mourn, sure.

I'm also thoroughly unimpressed with the obnoxious atheist whingebags I come across on these boards. The clowns who don't believe in God but want to talk about him 24/7.

And where have I dehumanised anyone? You whiny butthurt atheists really do have a persecution complex.

Your Catholic brother believes that someone who doesn't believe in your God story CANNOT be moral, has no morality. And you agree with him. How is that not dehumanising?

 

[Tiger]

But as a follower of Jesus you shouldn't, should you?

Jesus beat his adversaries with sticks.

You have no idea what you’re talking about 99% of the time.

You default to ‘Evening Herald’ levels of cognitive processing.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Jesus beat his adversaries with sticks.

So why are you a follower of such a man?