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?

I chose to send my children to a non faith school, although they could have applied for the Cof E church. I'm not pissed off in the slightest.
I went to church schools when I was a child [until age 9]and decided to never inflict that upon my own children.

"On the other hand, no-one who has strong religious beliefs should be forced into sending their children to schools where they will have those beliefs ridiculed and undermined on a daily basis. No-one should have to have their children indoctrinated either way."

That's an interesting comment. I'm slightly as to how you got from not teaching children that one type of belief system is more true than the others to ridicule, undermining and indoctrination.

However, what do you think happens to children from families with no religion? All schools in the UK are required, by law, to have an act of broadly Christian worship. Already Christianity is set up and perpetuated as the ideal belief system. Our children are indoctrinated from the age of 5 into this belief system.

I also find it frankly quite bizzare to suggest that a completely non-religious education (which by definition you can't get in the UK) somehow "indoctrinates" children and "ridicules and undermines" their parents belief systems. It is possible, you know, to have an education that is not Christian, or islamic, or Jewish, that does not "ridicule" religious belief. Case in point, I was educated in NZ. State schools there are not required to spout Christian beliefs. I went to a religious primary and a state secondary school. The difference between the two was I was not taught in secondary school that faiths of other flavours were lesser and not worthy of as much respect as the one true faith. I learnt about other belief systems without the implied 'well, you know, they are all a bit primitave' add on that I got in the religious school.

Finally, religious schools are selective. They are not necessarily better than state schools. Far from it in many cases, especially round our way.

Happy atheist here. I don't know any religious people in RL. Only thing that makes me a bit is religion in publically-funded schools in the UK, but that's because I've spent a lot of time in countries (US, France) where it's illegal.

slug sorry, I was envisioning a hypothetical atheist school. (I'm with whoever it was that said atheism is a belief system as potent as any religion, particularly wrgt the "followers" of Dawkins.) I should have made that clear. Also, state funded faith schools do only select on faith, not ability. My kids are at a Cathedral school and they do learn about other faith systems without anything being implied. They wouldn't pass their GCSE if they didn't! Generally, according to national statistics, faith schools seem to do better, which is not to say there aren't fantastic non faith schools or failing faith schools. "Round your way", it may well be different, "round here" isn't. [shrugs]

Sh*t! Sorry, really messed up the italics on that one! Only the the two "do"s should be in italics

All state schools in the UK are "faith" schools - but some schools are more specifically "faith" than others. There is no such thing as a state secular school.

So the statement "the athiests on mumsnet are just pissed off because their schools are crap and religous ones are better" cannot be true.

Fear not frantic. My experience of a strictly secular school was a happy one, for both my religious friends and my very happily athiest self. There's nothing to be feared by a secular school.

Fortunately, ds' school is probably as close as you can get (legally) to a a secular school - partly because its intake is 60% ethnic "minorities" (predominantly Muslim, but also Sikh, Hindu and Jewish), so our "religious and motal education" really is education and the assemblies have no real religious content for risk of offending one of the many faiths.

It is known to be an example of best practice in multi-cultural and multi-lingual teaching in the UK.

Honestly, as atheism is a lack of belief in the supernatural, it can not possibly be called a belief system. You'd have to be thick to come to that conclusion.

I don't believe in leprechauns. Do I now belong to some group who have a belief system about not believing in leprechauns? I don't need a kind of anti-faith-faith to know that the creation myth is a lie, that the ark never existed, and that we evolved over billions of years. These things are proven facts.

I have to listen to simpletons telling me things like "science is just another belief". Really? Does your telly turn on when you flick the switch to watch Songs Of Praise? Of course it does. The amazing science it takes to broadcast a TV show turned out to be true. Have a look up in the sky and see how many planes are flying, using the sciences of physics, aerodynamics, electronics, radar, radio, jet propulsion, and burning fuel that took the sciences of geology to dig out of the ground. Fuel from oil that, BTW, was there because of ancient forests from prehistoric times way before the alleged beginning of the universe according to the bible.

I have to listen to the uneducated telling me "but evolution is just a theory". Damnit, a theory is an idea which has never been disproved, ie: a fact. Like the theory of gravity (you're not floating around right now, are you).

So I am waiting around for any credible evidence for clairvoyants, tarot cards, astrology, psychics, ghosts, or any of the gods offered by any religion on Earth. Of course there isn't any. So I simply take the logical view that there is no god.

And yet no matter how much time or money I spend finding a good performing non-denominational school to send my child to, I have to put up with pointless acts of worship and RE teaching that demands we respect religion.

But back to topic... Having an atheist perspective is the result of a lack of belief, not a belief in itself. Please let this be the last I hear of this drivel.

prettybird In principle, yes. In practice, many just pay lip service to the rules and so, to all intents and purposes, are "secular". I personally think that the main thing "specifically faith" schools have to offer, purely wrt discipline, is an unusually strong sense of "community".

I really don't want to sound patronising here because I don't feel that way (though I'm certain someone will accuse me of it!) but I think the main "stumbling block" that the atheist vs faith argument re schools has is that atheists really just "don't get" the "whole life" aspects of faith. They genuinely don't see that faith, for the faithful, is a 24/7 thing and one can't just "do it after school". Things like giving thanks before and after meals and praying together in assemblies are an intrinsic part of a faithful life. There's no earthly reason why they should understand as it doesn't affect them but I do think it's a brick wall that there is no way around. Usually why these "discussions" get nowhere and sometimes end up becoming extremely unpleasant.

I re-iterate that I do feel very strongly that "faith" should not be the "norm" in most state funded schools but that the major faiths are wide spread enough and generally accepted enough for there to be some state provision of faith schools for the faithful who cannot afford to go private.

I really can't get the hang of this italics lark!

"GL - they're selective in that they only take children of the faith - they're not selecting on ability. so what was your point again?"

They do not just select on ground of faith - they select on many, many other grounds.

Snobear "God exists" is a theory which has never been disproved, because it can't be. As a Christian I would say that it is a "fact" that His existence cannot be disproved, but for all my faith, would never claim that His existence is a "fact", which, by the logic of your argument, I should be able to do?

Snobear4000 agree with you.
I think religions can and even should be taught in the context of history and cultural heritage, but otherwise it has absolutely no place in the school (unless it is a faith school funded fairly by the church, mosque or whatever).

GL please define "many, many other"?

as a religious person I'm struggling with this post:

"TortoiseonthehalfshellMon 21-Mar-11 02:11:19
It is 12.30pm. I'm considering what to get for lunch."

Surely to goodness it was 12.11pm on Tortoise planet?
I know the hours vary all over the world, but changing the minutes just does my head in

As stated before, I'm a Christian, but I think atheists/agnostics are bang on wrt religious schools. I believe strongly in the seperation of church and state. If I want my son to go to a religious school (and I may), I expect to pony up the cash.

When I was in elementary school we used to be released for an hour every Wednesday, walk to the church, and have RE. They don't do that anymore; they have it on Wednesday nights now. The only time God is mentioned in school is the Pledge, but you don't have to say it.

Anecdotally (from religious friends trying to get children into various schools in London): accademic ability; parental willingness to be involved in the school (which in their view often equates to parental income); social needs of the child and whether they belong to a different religion or no religion at all.

GL I was going to post the same. A friend had an interview with the head of the local religious school where it was made very clear to her that they will be expecting regular "parental contribution".

Atheism is an opinion same as the belief in God. That is why some call it a belief. Belief is too strong a word maybe but atheism is still an opinion which could be changed if more facts come to light.

Science is not yet able to say why or how evolution came about. I think even most people of faith agree in the process of evolution, certainly in this country. Science can say nothing about the existence of God if it can't say why evolution exists. Atheists who go on about science as providing all the answers are missing the point entirely. We don't have perfect knowledge of the world - there is a lot we still don't know.

Agnosticism is the logical position from which to consider the world since there is no definitive answer one way or another which will support or refute the existence of God in any form. To close your mind to the possibility of God by being an atheist isn't based on anything concrete so I kind of get OP views atheists as being whiners because they seem to think they have a monopoly on truth in a way that those with religious faith don't. Those with a faith tend to be much more aware they are rocky ground, logcially speaking. Atheists have no more certainty in what is the truth than those who believe.

Those bloody miserable whingeing atheists, always moaning, always trying to blow us up on the tube, always interfering in what we do in the bedroom, always flying planes into towers and mutilating their children's genitals, always defending child-rapists and trying to ban contraception, always lobbying the government for tax relief and subsidy for their 'belief systems' and special rituals. Bloody miserable atheists. Phooey. Why don't they leave us god-lovin death cultists alone?

Why do people need to be certain about something they don't believe in? Being an atheist doesn't require you to do anything whatsoever, so why do you need to be certain about non-belief and lack of action?

I can't be entirely certain that I shouldn't have become a vet or a hairdresser, but I don't see any reason why I need to dwell on it. If someone actually is a vet, then obviously they need to reflect sometimes on if they are certain it is the right life for them.

Snobear I don't think shifting the debate from ad rem to ad hominem (or ad feminem, here, I suppose) really strengthens your claim to be the voice of reason in this debate.

Atheism isn't a belief system and is not always a rejection. How can you reject what you never had?

Oh dear, dear Frantic. You say:

"God exists" is a theory which has never been disproved, because it can't be.

That is not a scientific theory. It's your theory. There is a difference.

From wikipedia (yeah I know...) A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.

God Exists is not a theory including abstractions of observable phenomena. It's just an idea.

Go back to school, or stop talking nonsense.