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?

If all schools would adopt what Ekklisia (essentially a christian think tank) suggests, then I suspect a very large proportion of the of the whinging righteous indignation on MN would cease.

Now Im overlaborious for explaining a point? Wow, I really can do no right can I.

Are those questions aimed at me?

Misty is it dicrimination or is it just been suitably qualified? If a teacher wants to work with deaf children they have be qualified to work with them. Could a teacher who hadn't bothered getting qualified throw their hands up in the air about it and call it discrimination?

Roseflower

I wanted to come back on something you said earlier - about taking this stuff seriously.

I do think it is serious (beyond the questions of discrimination etc,,,) because If any of any religion is true it is the most important thing in the world, surely?

Not only because of the alarming prospect of heaven, hell etc ... But also because if true it changes everything we know about everything.

If religious miracles and intervention by god(s) happen in the way that any of the religions contend, that means that the laws of physics and the nature of matter are not regular as we have assumed but can be arbitrarily changed (water into wine, wine into blood, dead to alive,brain function into immaterial souls etc...)

At this point all bets are off - the basis for any kind of decision making from crossing the road safely to assuming the sun will rise tomorrow depends on matter behaving regularly.

This is what I mean by religion being at odds with the evidence. All the evidence we have is that assuming regularity of the laws of physics is the best way to understand the universe, whist magical thinking is a dead end.

All the talk of politeness and respectful words for things seems designed to obscure this fundamental mismatch.

Clearly religious people are not irrational or stupid, but it is a mystery to me how they manage to wall off one part of their worldview from the rationality of the rest.

Accord's 5 principles are worth aiming for, yes.

I doubt whingeing on MN will cease even if they were adopted!

Weeell - tbh I'm a bit about state schools specialising in particular subjects such as language, it doesn't really seem to make sense. Great if you're a pupil who wants to specialise in languages and you live near that school, but not otherwise. Anyway I digress...

I guess in the case of a language qualification, it's an academic subject and so it's legitimate for a school to recruit on that basis.

In the case of special religious qualifications to teach in faith schools, I'm still not clear what that would qualify you to actually DO - is it to teach RE, or to lead prayers, or what? If it's to teach RE, then having a qualification in Catholicism won't necessarily help to teach about other religions. If it's to lead prayers, then is a Catholic school going to want a non-Catholic teacher to be leading prayers, even if they have a Catholic 'qualification'? It all seems a bit odd, and I'm guessing that discrimination would still take place regardless of qualifications.

roseflower - sorry yes, my questions were aimed at you, because you said upthread you had a qualification to teach in RC schools, I just thought you might be able to answer my questions about Theism. (from a RC PoV, not an Islamic or Judaic one, obviously)

Himalaya, I think there is a youtube video somewhere - the Bishop of Oxford and Richard Dawkins discuss various issues. The Bishop of Oxford kind of explained why there are limitations on miracles that are performed as a response to prayer.

Sorry if you think I'm being rude I am sometimes too forthright (AS).

Misty- I'm not actually advocating this PoV, I was just interested. I assume that the qualification refreshes your religious knowledge and covers how to apply the RC ethos throughout all parts of school life.

Rose - the current situation is that primary teachers are discriminated against for not adhering to a particular faith. In my part of the country a huge proportion of the primary schools are CofE or RC - vastly out of whack with the proportion of real churchgoers. Good,well qualified teachers find it hard to get jobs because they don't have references from a vicar or priest. Not because they can't teach the primary curriculum or are lacking a qualification. Not because they wouldn't teach whatever syllabus the school deemed fit for RE, if it wasn't following the SACRE. Just because they don't follow a brand of religion. This is pure and simple religious discrimination and is not allowed in any other profession. I think this level of discrimination isn't allowed in all LEAs but here, thats what happens.

I'm a well chirpy atheist here (mostly)

The only thing I have to worry about is how the world is going to disappear in a black hole or whether we're going to be able to sustain oursleves in a nuclear holocaust (not quite so chirpy).

If I wasn't an atheist, I probably wouldn't be worrying about such things but I am so there we go. Science for me all the way I'm afraid.

Mistyvalley, I'm annoyed about the whole specialised school thing too. Our local school has a technology specialism and the curriculum is filled up with supposedly technological subjects like childcare. The only school available where DS could do 3 single science GCSEs was a grammar school. So he sat the 11 plus and got into grammar school. He now has to travel 15 miles to a where the secondary schools consortium is based, unlike the technology school which is 3 miles away.

The consortium school base has a grammar school, a CofE comp and an RC comp. Were we Catholics or CofE, the LEA would pay the cost of DS's transport because they consider there to be no appropriate alternative school for children religious schools. But wanting to learn as much as possible about science (and DS could actually do 5 science GCSEs at his school) is not considered an appropriate reason to not attend your local school, so we have to pay £700 a year for school transport. If DD passes, that will be £1400 a year, and DH has lost his job.

It is all madness. When I was at school, my local school simply offered a wide and varied curriculum that meant that children could choose appropriate options.

Darkskies: I am in Scotland.

As I understand it, in England, there are no "state" faith schools - there are grant maintained or "voluntary aided" schools, which are majority funded (90%?) by the state.

We abolished grant maintained schools in Scotland about 20-30 years ago in Scotland. All the faith schools that remain are 100% funded by the state.

BTW: to teach at a catholic school in Scotlad, as well as your PGCE in the subject you are going to teach (you are not allowed to teach anything else - a rule common to all state schools in Scotland) you also have to have a reference from your local parish priest "who should be able to testify to your personal religious belief and character ".

"Clearly religious people are not irrational or stupid, but it is a mystery to me how they manage to wall off one part of their worldview from the rationality of the rest" Himalaya Tue 22-Mar-11 23:15:48

I often think that deep down, vicars/priests and the like not being stupid people, must mean that they know they are basically being paid for lying.

They must feel such guilt at knowing they cannot prove God or whoever else exists and that they're only going along with what the world was led to believe in order to supress the masses.

Oh dear - I'm starting to waffle - off to bed

"Misty is it dicrimination or is it just been suitably qualified? If a teacher wants to work with deaf children they have be qualified to work with them. Could a teacher who hadn't bothered getting qualified throw their hands up in the air about it and call it discrimination?"

Well, as I said before it's kind of an academic (ha) question as far as I'm concerned as I don't believe that faith schools should exist in the first place, much less be in a position to be discriminatory about religious qualifications.

MillyR - I'll have a look on Utube tomorrow. I do wonder how the Bishop of Oxford knows these things though

your school situation does sound frustrating.

Himyala what a great post.

I just wish it was earlier so my brain wasnt as tiered! I can really only answer on what I think, not every relgious person.

I do think it is serious (beyond the questions of discrimination etc,,,) because If any of any religion is true it is the most important thing in the world, surely?

Well to me religon is the most important thing. It's the very foundation of my life. It effects my view of the world, my happiness, my hope and who I am. Having a faith has, as they say "changed me from the inside out". It is very much a part of me.

Not only because of the alarming prospect of heaven, hell etc ... But also because if true it changes everything we know about everything.

Well I guess it would depend on your religion about heaven and hell. Personally I do not even know if I beleive in hell. As a parent why would you destroy your own child? Perhaps the Catholic idea of purgatory is correct. I don't know. What is heaven? I don't know. But it gives me hope for all the suffering this world has brought me. Even if Im wrong, the hope gives me strength. It makes me get through it.

If religious miracles and intervention by god(s) happen in the way that any of the religions contend, that means that the laws of physics and the nature of matter are not regular as we have assumed but can be arbitrarily changed (water into wine, wine into blood, dead to alive,brain function into immaterial souls etc...)

The laws of physics are regular, but with Jesus the laws did not apply to him. Unless we see the miracles as merely metaphors to illustrate a point. I personally beleive we have souls all from the moment we are alive. To be told there is no soul to be seems ludicrous. The soul is what makes us human.

At this point all bets are off - the basis for any kind of decision making from crossing the road safely to assuming the sun will rise tomorrow depends on matter behaving regularly.

But even with God or no God matter could change. Evolutions says things chnage. Why could matter not change?

is what I mean by religion being at odds with the evidence. All the evidence we have is that assuming regularity of the laws of physics is the best way to understand the universe, whist magical thinking is a dead end.

But I don't think its at odds. Physics laws are God's laws. I

All the talk of politeness and respectful words for things seems designed to obscure this fundamental mismatch.

I am a little unclear on this one?

Clearly religious people are not irrational or stupid, but it is a mystery to me how they manage to wall off one part of their worldview from the rationality of the rest.

But I did see it at odds. You see science as proof he doesnt exsist. I see it as understanding how God made the world.

I like seeing the beauty, the mytery and the awe of the world. I cannot look at stars or a sunset I think about how scientific it is. I see magic, I see hope, I see wonder and something far greater than me.

Further up the thread I see the old "atheism is a faith" nonsense being trotted out again, despite the fact that this has been comprehensively knocked on the head here and elsewhere many, many times over.

Atheism is not a faith.
Bald is not a hair colour.
Non-stamp-collecting is not a hobby.

The absence of an object X - the total lack of need for X, the total irrelevance of X in your life - is not another form of X.

The empty set contains no data.

If anyone genuinely feels they don't understand atheism and wants to have questions answered in a reasoned and non-hearted manner, then this site, Ask The Atheists is exceptionally good.

UD You encourage people to ask an athesit. But I havent once seen you ask a religious person a question.

You make a lot of negative assumptions. I think it's a shame you dont try and find out different views points youself rather the lumping everyone together.

RF In the UK, since goodness knows when, we have been brought up through school to believe in God. Only in more recent decades has RE been taught in schools regarding other faiths and not purely regarding the Christian Faith.

I was brought up as a Christian in a C of E school and feel, as an adult, cheated. I grew up thinking it was all true as we were 'brainwashed' into thinking so. When you can remember back to being 4/5, the vicar said God created the world and Jesus was born etc etc. Until you become a teen or older, why would you question anything they told us as not being true?

Therefore, perhaps unquietdad isn't saying 'ask a religious person' because the majority of people in this country, know what and why Christians believe.

Try to remember being taught in school what an atheist is or what they believe. Oh that's right - we weren't told......until we were probably about 14

I have asked questions, that I would like to know your opinion on... though I am very confused now you say that you don't believe in hell...

vintage- I would refute your first sentence- I was intorduced to faith by my parents, a long time before I got to school.

I went to a non-faith based school, though we had to have collective worship every day- I learnt very little about christianity there!

Yes darkskies - but as you say, your parents taught you about faith at home. The point is that religion has been forced upon on in some form or another (generally speaking) for centuries and it is the norm for the majority of people.

vintage But most religious people believe in different things. It is quite a huge assumption to think every single Christian thinks the same. I don't. But hey I hate fitting in with the crowd.

I actually was at international schools as I lived abroad (in a Muslim country)so I didnt have religious influence on me until I returned to UK at about 8.

I went to a Catholic school but dont remember feeling brainwashed. All I recall is I wasnt allowed the bread stuff!

My secondary school wasn't faith.

I remember thinking the word Atheist was excellent for a band name and drawing it all over my RE excercise book!

I was an atheist until about 5years ago, then agnostic and now I would decribe myself as liberal Christian.

But hey I guess I never do things like anyone else!

Himalaya, they also discuss religious schools.

I am just having a pointless moan about the school situation; I should be counting myself lucky to have a decent school available for DS to go to. I also know some kids from non-religious backgrounds won't even bother attempting to get into the 3 schools because their parents can't afford £700 per child a year.