To think the atheists on MN are a bunch of miserable whingers

[GothAnneGeddes]

Every bloody week it's a new thread whining on about how terrible it is that there is religion in the world.

A prominent feature of such threads is the intolerance and stupidity of religious folk, yet threads by believers insulting atheists are very rare.

Besides, aren't you all meant to be so happy to be freed from the shackles of religion, that you're too busy having fun to moan?

Great post frantic. Don't leave the thread!

For some reason the term "sexed-up atheism" makes me giggle. Perhaps I need a nap...

And my made up definition confused you into thinking I was talking about Frantic thinking atheism = faith = confidence in someone? I don't get it.

This conversation is starting to remind me of one of those implausible deniabilty conversations I have with my kids (did you leave muddy foot prints on the stairs? No. Well why are your muddy shoes on top of stairs? Oh those stairs, didn't think you meant those stairs. Why didn't you clear it up? Well you never told me to take my shoes off etc.....arghhh...)

I am aware that this level of pedentry probably fits into the OPs miserably winging category, but what the heck.

The thing is I suspect that at the heart of most reconcilations of religious beliefs and reality are similar bait-and-switch word games (e.g discussion about rationality of belief in god often centres on a minimal definition of a completely non interventionist, light- the-fuse and-stand-back 'god', which can't be disproved or known about one way or another, then at some point switch this deity with your chosen bush burning, tablet writing, etc... 'god')

I think the unconsious (?) habits of treating religious ideas with extra respect, and of not looking at the language too closely, are part of the self defense mechanism of religions against more rational examination of their claims.

Interesting post, Frantic, and I can see pantheism as a faith. I can also see why Richard Dawkins discusses pantheism, because he is very interested in material reality. I just think you can't extend that to make atheism into a faith, because lots of atheists are not particularly interested in the universe; the natural world isn't of great personal meaning or interest to them.

No interest at all in the universe. I like Richard Dawkins but I think that in a strange kind of way he makes it difficult for some atheists to be understood.

Because it is controversial to 'come out' as an atheist, the people who tend to do so tend to be at the top of the tree of their professions and tend to be highly articulate people.
These people have given a lot of thought to their 'non-belief', however, it gives the impression that ALL atheists have thought deeply about it.

This is not the case: I just don't believe there is a god and the only explanation I can give is that I only trust what I can observe with my five senses or that which has some evidence attached to it.

Wow... you take this stuff very seriously.

The truth is in ANY discussion about anything it irks me to the very core when someone declares something as absolute fact and authority without even relying an an academic source.

Lets face it, as all you posts your defintion was worded to be nasty which irked me even more.

My point is you want to declare a FACT then use a proper source.

Perhaps I have just spent far to much time in education but thats the crux of the matter to it and nothing more.

I also think they way you make so many assumptions (all designed to be as negative as possible) about what religious people do and think is quite awful to be honest. Should you not be asking questions if you truly want to understand?

Dawkins makes it "difficult" in precisely the same way "noisy" and "shrill" feminists make it difficult, by pointing out the blindingly obvious, and demanding justice.

An instance of the latter would be why should I as an atheist have to subsidise religious schools, where I am forbidden to teach? I don't agree with their views, but I do need a job.

He's clever, uncompromising and that pisses off his critics. Oh, and he gets lots of the oxygen of publicity. Boo hoo.

I there is some truth to that echt. There is an element of consciousness raising to his some of the stuff he says. But a lot of the other stuff he says has a focus on evolution vs. religion, for many obvious reasons. A lot of atheists don't really care about evolution and a lot of religious people believe in evolution. I think that created a public perception that atheism is grounded in an interest in evolution, or more widely an interest in rational thought.

That really isn't the case. There are many different types of meaning that an atheist might be basing their life on which are not about either evolution or rational thought.

Dawkins doesn't make being religious difficult, he just makes atheism laughable. He wants atheists to wear special badges and even has a converts corner on his website. For something that isn't a belief system (although branding yourself 'Brights' and 'Freethinkers' makes me wonder), he does seem to like to dress it up as a quasi religion and I find that very amusing indeed.

Also, I do not understand how it is difficult being an atheist in the UK. I have had far too many conversations (never started by me) where I am informed that religion is a load of bollocks, there's no God, blah, blah, blah.

I'm also sure that no atheists on here have been told they should be shot, had people move away from them on public transport and just face a general level of harrassment. My life would be far easier in many aspects if I was an atheist, but I love having God in my life too much to give it up.

Oh come on, echt! Why should I, as a Catholic, have to subsidise hospitals performing abortions? Why should the childless subsidise any school?

I don't believe you are "forbidden" to teach in faith schools. I know of teachers in faith schools who do not subscribe to the school's faith. That schools will give preference to a candidate who is of that faith I can understand, but if a school is in desperate need of a Maths teacher and no-one religiously "suitable" applies, they'll just do without will they? Truly sorry, because I actually hate putting on "judgey pants", but that is beginning to sound a bit like whinging.

Never once know of a school to 'forbid' an atheist. Only ask for respect for their ethos which hardly seems unfair.

GAG: I'm sorry you have been threatened and insulted on public transport, but this is less about you believing in any unspecified deity and more about the particular brand of mythology you follow ie some people think it's OK to be rude to Muslims not because they have a particular religious belief but because of the rude people's racism and xenophobia ie not all the people who are so unpleasant to you are necessarily atheists, many are likely to be at leat nominally Christian.
I don;t start fights with people on social occasions should they identify themselves as believers unless such people are really looking for a fight eg, someone announces that they are Christian/Muslim/Jewish/whatever, I am likely to say, 'Oh really? Right,' and carry on the conversation. If it comes up in a conversation about some sort of ethical issue I'll probably mention that I am not, and that it isn't that relevant to the ethical issue itself. If the person starts demanding privileges for his/her imaginary friend then I'll argue.
You see, that's the whole point. I have every respect for people's right to believe bullshit, but none for the bullshit. And I have yet to see any convincing argument for why a sincere and deeply held belief in one of the big name imaginary friends should be given more or less respect than a sincere and deeply held belief that fairies exist, that women are inferior to men, or that the earth is flat.That a belief is sincere and deeply held doesn;t make it any less ludicrous. So though the 'Oh right, really, that's nice for you' type of getaway is probably best in social situations, it's a different matter when people start insisting that their silly beliefs must be allowed to effect others' lives, whether that's demanding legal exemption from anti-discrimination laws, insisting on the right to mutilate their DC's genitals or just getting in the way of other people's perfectly legal activities.

Those hospitals do not forbid you from having treatment in them, frantic51, and yes, adherence to the faith is required at the levels of my experience and expertise.

Love the way you imply that their letting go of the rules to let in Maths or Physics teachers is kind!!. How generous of them. Self-serving more like.

Get off the "whinging" why don't you: this is a serious equal opportunity employment issue.

By the way, "respect for the ethos" means leading prayers in class in all the schools I have checked out.

Well I would expect leading prayers would be part of your job.

No one is forcing you to work in a faith school though are they?

I'm still sitting here at the poster who suggested that atheists should just not live in areas where there are only faith schools - I mean, there are lots of reasons for choosing to live somewhere, many of which weigh at least as heavily as the provision of schools - the presence of family, the availability of work, the affordability of housing, transport links, hospitals...

Saying that atheists should just move away to 'atheist ghettos' if there are no good non-faith schools around where they live is just insensitive. Why would it be so bad to have good quality non-faith state schools available everywhere? Drat, turning into an atheist whinger now - or maybe I'm just a raving commie who thinks that (gasp) good quality state education should be available to all children irrespective of faith.

FWIW I don't believe that religion has only brought evil to the world - I've seen the beautiful buildings, heard the music, see the good that people do. However, I wish that faith could remain between the believer and the deity of their choice and that the whole' them and us' thing didn't happen. Disclaimer - I feel the same way about 'them and us' in any other context, i.e. 'my tribe and their tribe', 'Chelsea fan/Man United fan', 'Anchovies on pizza/no anchovies on pizza'. Faith should stay in the church and in the home, laws should be largely secular and based on the common moral principles that the vast majority of believers and non-believers have in common.

I don't think it is difficult to be an atheist in the UK. I think that some religious feeling in the UK has created difficulties for specific groups, and that this is slowly being eradicated from our institutions.

The only reason faith schools exist is to brain wash the next generation, subsidised by the taxpayer. There are after all no religious kids at birth. Personally I believe in the Great Green Apple In The Sky (Great GATSKY for short)who manifests her love for humanity by allowing us to commune with her via the sacrament of cider. This is be enjoyed on a daily basis, the more of it the better.

It is of course utterly ridiculous to suggest that people should choose the area they live in based on whether or not they will be discriminated against by the local state faith school.

It's a good job we don't have faith hospitals too - otherwise people of the wrong belief system / agnostics / atheists would be spending their lives dodging hospitals and schools where they were deemed 'unsuitable' or 'not quite respectful enough' to be admitted.

Redbin

"Why should the childless subsidise any school? " Well, presumably because taxes aren't just for those things from which the taxpayer expects to receive direct benefit, and said childless taxpayer may well have need of the services of doctors, nurses, lawyers, accountants in the future, or may want to visit museums, which need curators, or read current research on history, which needs academics - all of these people that the childless may need in the future need to go to school.

I think people forget that many atheists started out religious and gradually became atheist, so it's not true that they don't understand the life of those who believe in a god, they just don't share that need.

I also think that we tend to see, in general, attacks on that which we hold dear far more quickly and clearly than on things that we either don't care about, or dislike. So I'm drawn to this thread because I'm an atheist - if I see a thread saying AIBU to think all Buddhists are tossers, I may not even really register it's there. So it may seem to believers that they're constantly under attack, but it's a question of perspective.

fwiw, I'm a happy atheist, just wishing that my children didn't have to "worship" something in school until they're old enough to make the damn decision for themselves. And I do get irked by the "the country has been Christian since time x" as there are lots of things that have been there for a long time - it doesn't make them immune to change. Women not having the vote would be one, and the country being Catholic, rather than Protestant...

Roseflower - in a recession you're kind of forced to take what jobs you can get, surely?

Duh, roseflower, no, no-one is forcing me to, but my argument was, had you bothered to read my earlier posts, was that as a taxpayer I should be entitled to teach there.

If the religious want to pick and choose on the basis of having an imaginary friend, then they should fund themselves. That's it, really.

Yup, mistyvalley and pointythings

Frantic - your taxes pay for abortions, because we have a universal healthcare system and because they were agreed as a medical procedure between a doctor and their patient - and because we don't live in a theocracy. Are you really arguing that it should be otherwise.

Your taxes also pay for people to be prescribed the pill, coil and condoms. Taxes paid by Jews and Muslims also pay for non-halal and non-Kosher meals in hospitals, prisons etc.. Taxes paid by Jains support agricultural subsidies for all kinds of proscribed foods. Taxes paid by Quakers pay for the armed forces.

That's how taxes work, you don't get an itemised bill for the stuff you use.

Doesn't justify discrimination in employment or service provision though.

Is it really impossible to answer a post without resorting to childish terms like 'duh'?

Its a common theme isn't it to try and discredit someone's intelligance because they have raised a valid point?

No teacher is 'entitled' to teach anywhere.Just like any job you have to meet a certain criteria. The discrimation agaisnt you as an atheist is in your head.

echt you're overly fond of the word "forbid". Faith schools don't "forbid" anyone to either study or work there. There's no law, or rule which states that. On the contrary, voluntary aided schools such as Church of England and Catholic schools are not allowed to discriminate against staff of other faiths, or no faith, except in the appointment of religious education teachers. They are only asked to be sympathetic of the particular religious ethos.

How did I imply that "their letting go of the rules to let in Maths or Physics teachers is kind"? Maths was simply the first subject that sprang to mind. No faith school is going to leave a vacancy open because they can't find anyone of the right faith (except in the case of RE). They're all more too worried about league tables!