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?

YABU

I prefer god-free to godless

Happy atheist here :) A couple of points from reading this thread...

Our local church secondary school selects both on church attendance and academically. Coincidentally it is the best performing secondary in the area. Do I think this is because of the faith they teach? No. I think it is because they select both academically and children whose parents were determined enough to get them into a good school that they attended church regularly for 5 years before applying. And yes I do know people who are doing this just to get their children into the school and not for any real belief. I'll probably try and get my children a place there through the academic route. I accept that means they'll be taught to be Christian but I trust that they will find their own way in the fullness of time. As I would be choosing to send them there I would not object. I do object a bit to them being taught to be Christian in their local state non-church school though.

I don't consider being atheist to be a belief system any more than I consider not believing in fairies to be a belief system. Religion (apart from when it is thrust upon me) is just not relavent to my life. I do not pursue my lack of belief. I do not study texts to support my lack of belief. I do not gather with fellow non believers to worship um nothing. I just can't get my head round seeing it as a belief system at all. It's hard to explain. I don't actively believe that God (or any other deity you could name) does not exist. I simply have no belief that he (she/any other) does exist. It is an absence of belief.

Ha ha at quoting from wikipedia - if your're trying to look intelligent the least you could do is link from credible sources.

Well put nobodyimportant.

It's like saying "Not believing in the Loch Ness Monster" is a belief system by which you choose to live your life. Um, no - it's just something that is so irrelevant and inconsequetial to me (I accept it may not be to others) that I have had more important things to think about.

"Science is not yet able to say why or how evolution came about."

Perhaps a better statement is ... Science has amassed a wealth of evidence about the evolutionary process.

Just because you don't understand the process of evolution or do not understand the definition of "theory" in a scientific context, does not mean it isn't an observable, quantifiable phenomonon. For example, my physics is a bit dodgy. Just because my grasp of aerodynamics isn't up to fully understanding how the theory that gravitational forces can be overcome by wing lift, it does not stop me from flying. I don't refuse to fly simply because gravity is still, scientifically speaking a "theory" and therefore the best course of action is to sit around waiting until more facts come to light.

It's a good point about the parents nobodyimportant. In order to regularly attend church for 5 years prior to applying, you need to have a fairly stable home life. Children from chaotic or poverty stricken homes (where the parents may well have to work on Sundays) are less likely to have parents who are capable of regularly attending church. It's well known that children with chaotic home lives tend to do less well in school. By insisting on regular church attendance, church schools are self selecting children with stable home lives who are already one step up on the educational achievement ladder.

Another happy atheist here .

Well, apart from when I think about the various ways in which religion affects my life, whether I want it to or not, via the intertwining of the British state with the Church. Then I get a bit .

I don't see the issue with wikipedia. It is an internet resource that attempts to explain concepts in a way that non-specialists can understand.

That seems the perfect place to point people to if they have little knowledge of scientific terms and you are in a discussion on something like MN.

I know there are mistakes sometimes on wikipedia, but they are usually flagged up.

Snobear I am going to rise above your attempts to rouse me to anger.

If God created the world then there's no point in discussing further. If He didn't, at some point, someone has "created" the idea of Him. Said "creator" must have had reason, no? Presumably to explain the inexplicable, ie how the world came into being. (What you would call scientific "knowledge" must have been pretty rudimentary at the time?) What else are "scientific" theories? We look at something and don't understand how it works or how it is. We put forward theories and set out to disprove them with a view to increasing our "understanding". The problem with the "God theory" is that no scientist has, as yet, satisfactorily disproved it.

I would be interested to know at what period in history you would consider theories to have become "scientific"?

Frantic - it is impossible to prove a negative. It is not a question of science having been unable to do it so far - they never will be able to. You have to look at it from the other way round - there is not one shred of evidence, not one to prove that God exists. You require "faith" to believe in God - that is a decision to believe in something which cannot be proved. I require no faith to be an atheist.

Frantic 51, you seem to have the idea of a scientific theory the wrong way around. When scientists have an understanding of a number of smaller facts and laws, those facts and laws are grouped together as a broader fact with explanatory power; we call this a theory. An example of this is that earth revolves around the sun.

Science has always existed; it has existed long before it was called science. The ability to invent and develop agriculture is a science. The ability to repeatedly make fire is scientific in nature, and that was developed by an ancestral species, not our species.

IIRC the topic of "methodology" that I had to study as part of my Economic degree, it is impossible to prove a negative.

I don't believe in the new bolding and italics system.

Bollocks, I say.

I think that when people on here slate religion, it often more the way their family (or others) are practicing or preaching that annoys them, not the inherent beliefs or the concept of religion itself.

FWIW I'm a scientist and I have come across many colleagues that are religious and they've never had any problems (except for the one who didn't believe in evolution, but no-one was nasty to her face we were all just in disbelief)

We could bash our heads against the brick wall of ignorance argue the toss over which god, if any, might exist, which is not so important if everyone simply worships, or doesn't worship, on the weekends, in their homes, at their youth groups or whatever it is where they do these things, without forcing religion into the lives of others.

The thing that gets the atheist's hackles up, turning them into miserable "whingers", especially on MN (where I assume most of us have children), is the ludicrous school system where people are forced to go to church in some areas to have a chance at getting their child into a performing school.

It's unfair, it's discriminatory, it's a MASSIVE WASTE OF OUR TIME and surely, there will be an EU law against it sometime soon.

GothAnneGeddes I think it would be fair, at this point, taking all posts into account to say: YADNBU :)

Snobear, saying God doesn't exist is your theory. It isn't a scientific fact.

You (anybody) can say 'I believe there is/I don't believe there isn't a God'. Neither is fact though, scientific or otherwise. They are both just opinions or beliefs. That is why atheism gets labelled as a belief system. Because in reality it is on no firmer ground than believing in God.

The fact that evolution happened doesn't say anything about the existence of God so banging on about what science does or does not tell us is irrelevant.

Interesting different perspective, Roseflower. I read this thread and see how the OP is proven as being unreasonable as people have made reasoned arguments about why that is not the case.

For the avoidance of doubt: OP - YABU but I am not going to whinge about it.

There is no way every atheist can match the description the OP gave. A lot I know really couldn't be bothered to enter any discussion, it's just not on their agenda.

But for the one's who have posted... they aren't exactly disproving the op's claims.

GooseyLoosey & MillyR merely taking my lead from Snobear: "Damnit, a theory is an idea which has never been disproved, ie: a fact."

I've not whined. I'm an atheist. I've not insulted any of the posters on here. I have attempted to explain why I don't need a "belief" system that includes the non belief in God to define me.

I've only ever entered disucssions about religion to point out that you don't need to have a belief in God to have a sense of morality and to support people's desire for disestablishmentarianism.

How does that support the OP?

Tbh I wasn't really talking about you prettybird.

... but I am not the only atheist who has argued "reasonably" - so by definition, that disproves the OP's premise.

I think the opening poster has it all wrong.
Religious people are generally happier than atheists because they have a belief in god and, if churchgoing, a social system to support them.

Atheists simply do not have a belief in a supernatural being to support them in life and this can actually make them unhappier.

Anyway, if people wish to be religious that is fine by me, as long as:
a, Religion is given no more sway in public policy than any other interest such as trainspotting.

b, Children are not indoctrinated into it. If a grown man wishes to have the end of his penis cut off, that's up to him.
I cannot believe that in a supposedly civilised country like the UK, unnecessary circumcision on infants is still tolerated.

I simply think that religious people are unhinged.
Doesn't mean I don't like them any more or less than non-religious people, just that I think they are slightly mad.