AIBU to find this slightly odd behaviour from atheist friends?

[handsandknees]

I am an Evangelical Christian. People who know me well know that. I am happy to talk about it if people want to, but I don't go on about it.

Last Easter one of my friends posted a long status on facebook basically ranting against the Christian Easter message and saying that she didn't want or need Jesus to have died for her, thank you very much. Up to her what she writes of course, but the tone was very aggressive and I wondered why. I didn't comment but later she sent me a personal message asking me what I thought of her post.

Then this week another friend posted a photo on my wall which said "Proud to say I'm an atheist". I haven't responded but just wondering why would someone do this? I am not offended just find it a bit strange.

Why do you think they would do this?

I didn't mention evangelism. I don't know any atheists who are opposed to faith schools or collective worship or compulsory RE because they think their children will be converted.

I take it (unless i am misunderstanding you) that you are not opposed to any of these things, and so you do actually want special privileges for your faith! Forgive me if I've got this wrong.

Secularists (not just atheists - see Accord Coalition) oppose faith schools primarily because on the basis of parental religion (real or pretended) they discriminate against some children and privilege others. ( VC CofE schools which have to operate fair admissions (and employment) policies aren't much of a problem.)

The reason I would want to explore it, SGB, is to see if my mother was correct- there is no reason that I have to follow her line of reasoning just because she is my mother. I can have exactly the same facts and come to entirely different conclusions. Anyone who is so adamant they are right immediately makes it an interesting subject- certainly not boring!
I would have thought it was very healthy to have different views and not all be clones.

Exoticfruits: I'm still interested in how far you think it's reasonable to go in exploring things your parents disagree with, just because your parents disagree with them. Do you think that all DC, for instance, go through a phase of stealing, or beating up people smaller than them, or tying bangers to cats' tails, simply because their parents have told them that these are bad things to do?

I think that everyone can agree that stealing etc is wrong(as stated in 10 commandments) I can't see what a belief in God has to do with racism when the central message is 'love your neighbour as yourself'.
I think you are confusing a belief in God with being involved with organised religion. The two can be separate- you can believe in God without ever setting foot in a church etc .
I would explore it because you are so sure that you are right that I immediately want to find out the other side. There are 2 sides to any question and I would want to know them before I dismissed one. 'Because my mother says so' has never held much ice for me (even if she proves to be right)

I I think some people think that if you are an atheist you fobid your childre to explore religion or learn about all the different faiths. We are an atheist family- well, dp, dd and I are- dsis a little young to be sure- but dd is doing philosophy of religion for A level . Our dinner table conversations are ....interesting to say the least! We leave proscribed thinking to some faith groups!

I'm afraid it's a trend. It's CND for the noughties, or hunt saboteurism.

A lot of people do find it hard to accept other people don't see the world the same way they do. In this case, the OP's 'friends' clearly dont want to accept she believes something different to them.

Some people find the very fact that other people believe something else and state their belief, that means they are telling them they are wrong and take any admittance of faith as an insult on their faith/lack of faith, rather than just a personal statement, therefore it's OK to "have a go back" because in their mind, just admitting you are a Christian you are starting an argument, not just saying what you believe.

It would be interesting if the OP comes back, are these the sort of people who have strong political views as well and "can't" be friends with people who vote for different parties? Are they rather "tribal" in all opinion issues (like faith and politics) and can't tolerate alternative view points?

I can't see it matters. DH doesn't believe in God-I do-so what? I don't know what he voted in the last election. I don't know what I will vote in the next one-and I won't necessarily tell anyone. I don't know if I will believe in God in the future. It seems very controlling to want to decide for every one and very narrow minded to think you will never change.

SGB - I think I have to agree with ExoticFruits - there's something rather sad with the sort of adults who just accept their parent's world view without spending any time in their early adulthood to explore those views and see if, looking at all information, you'd come to the exact same conclusions. It's not surprising at all that if your parents are strongly atheist (rather than just not really thinking about it) you would as an adult spend a bit of time getting to understand what they are so against, and then possibly coming to a different conclusion.

It's like the people who just vote for the party their parents do, or the party that represents "people like them", without making the slightest bit of effort to get to know what each party's ideology and policies actually are.

Basically, I'm terribly intolerant of people who "strongly believe/don't believe in something" just because their mum does. Draw a different conclusion to me, but draw it yourself, don't just blindly have faith in your mum's political/spiritual/ethical views.

My father spouted similar arguments to SGB and I can remember at the age of around 10yrs thinking it was strangely childish for an adult-his was a reaction against a strict Methodist background-to which I can have some sympathy with both sides.

Anybody want to address my point about it being absolutely fine to believe whatever you want to,, but it not being fine to claim special privileges because of what you believe, or to impose your beliefs on other people?

No? Thought not. Because it's much easier to setup straw men and attack them.

I agree with you Seeker. Was there a specific question?

I am opposed to tax-payer funded faith schools, if that's what you mean. We don't have them here.

I have absolutely no desire to impose my beliefs on others-as told many times my DCs don't believe in God -so what? Why should it matter? Why should there be special privileges?

If the state want to take over church schools they need to pay for them-they can't afford it? Are the church supposed to just hand over prime assets?

Sorry-it wasn't a question! They can't afford it!

seeker - are you deliberately reading me wrongly?

I am a forgiving person, but find it difficult to deal with someone who accuses me of the opposite of what I have written! You seem to have made up your mind what I believe, and thrust that on me, whatever I write.

I said I only supported bishops in the HofL, if other faiths and Atheists are also represented, i.e. no special favours for the C of E.

As far as C of E schools, again I wrote (did you bother to read it?) that I would support their ultimate "secularization". I pointed out the legal and other problems involved in it, which meant that the process would be slow - and I would at the same time want to see the secularization of all other faith schools - Catholic, Jewish, Islamic.

There is an irony here. If my concern is mainly in the Church of England spreading the Christian gospel, then it would suit me very much if all C of E schools were secularized. As I pointed out, if they are regarded as instruments of evangelism, or even just of "faith maintenance", then they are proven extremely bad at it. No surprise. I have been on two boards of governors of C of E schools, in one case as Chair. In all my time, we never discussed matters of faith. And in appointing teachers we never inquired as to their faith - the only requirement being that they would be happy to work in a C of E school.

On the other hand, if my concern were mainly that the Church of England is serving the public by providing a good education, I would tend to support the continuation of C of E schools, as long as their general academic performance continues notably higher than of state schools as a whole.

My personal preference is for the second model of church activity i.e. the Church of England as more of a servant to the nation than as an evangelising body. Therefore I ought to support the continuation of C of E schools for the time being. However I so often come across attitudes such as yours, and a wilful misunderstanding of my position - which I know is held by most others involved in C of E schools - that I think it's probably now better to avoid all the ignorance and aggro, and just work to end any C of E links with public education.

This may seem like "cutting off one's nose to...", but you can just waste so much time and energy dealing with those who just don't seem to want to listen.

Is no one able to separate a belief in God from organised religion-they do not have to go hand in hand!

seeker - "Anybody want to address my point about it being absolutely fine to believe whatever you want to,, but it not being fine to claim special privileges because of what you believe, or to impose your beliefs on other people?

No? Thought not. Because it's much easier to setup straw men and attack them."

If you actually bothered to read replies to your "points", and not accuse people of the opposite to what they have written - youi might actually get more replies!

"seeker"???!!!

Sorry, of course it's "you" not "youi" - don't want to be accused of being illiterate as well as ridiculous!

I'm sorry, Frank- I must have misunderstood you. I understand now that you are opposed to bishops in the House of Lords.

I am still puzzled by your stance on faith schools, though. You say you would like them to be the servants of the nation. Surely they can only be such if they do not have discriminatory admissions policies? And if they didn't have discriminatory admissions policies, they would stop being more successful than average academically, because the element of selection would be removed. ( it is only oversubscribed faith school that achieve significantly better than non faith schools drawing from similar catchments.

I don't think anyone thinks of CofE schools as instruments of evangelism, do they? Certainly nobody on this thread does as far as I know!

exoticfruits

Of course belief in God doesn't mean the same as "organised religion". In fact organised religion, by setting up power structures, tends to add all sorts of "doctrines" merely to maintain the position of those in power.

On the other hand, a moderate organisation without emphasis on power, is often better than the situation where mavericks on power trips set up their own "church" "temple" "mosque" etc. in order to satisfy their egos.

seeker
I oppose discriminatory selection policies - and many C of E schools don't have them. One of the schools I was governor of didn't have them - it was the only school in the community. The other did have a preference for C of E members, but only from applicants outside the school's catchment area - and we never had to turn anyone away who had applied, who would otherwise have qualified through proximity to the school. In fact, I can't recall that we had to refuse entry to any child. The main problem with the last school is that it attracts a much higher proportion of black students than in the community as a whole - in SE London, Christianity is at a higher level among blacks than whites. Many of the black parents themselves were concerned that the school didn't represent the community. So much for the oft-repeated idea that C of E schools are white dominated.

Incidentally, in both schools the majority of pupils were not from C of E families.

I would strongly dispute the idea that the only reason for the better average performance of faith schools is because of the "quality" of the students. Selection is not made on the basis of academic ability. However in secularization, I would start with the schools which do have discriminatory policies.

Many of those who oppose Church Schools do tend to portray them as instruments the Church uses to indoctrinate youngsters in the "Faith". Whether or not this is true for Catholic, Jewish, and Islamic schools, I am not qualified to judge - it certainly isn't true of any C of E schools I have known.

Frank

Thanks for your response (and also picking up on some of your conversation with Grimma)?..I am afraid I am still no more enlightened by really, really how you reconcile your knowledge of science and your belief in god.

The whole argument seems to slip between the logic that there could possibly be an unknowable, first cause, non-anthropomorphic ?god? and your conviction that there is a god of love that communicates experientially with human beings. Those two propositions are not the same thing ? yes the first might be true, but not the second one.

You say ?It is quite possible to believe that while the whole of ultimate reality might have a purpose, it doesn't necessarily show up in proximate processes.?
?by proximate processes presumably you mean anything knowable in the physical world ? including anything we can sense with human organs or instruments, what we know about the big bang and natural selection as well as what we don?t yet know but could one day find out (i.e. the domain of science).

You say the purpose of reality doesn?t necessary show up in proximate processes (but presumably it might?)

If it does, then wouldn?t that then make it part of the domain of science?

If it doesn?t then doesn?t that make it completely unknowable to humans?

So the logical answer is the second one. I would agree with you that on some abstract logical level, the universe may have some completely unknowable and unfathomable purpose which is not reflected in anything we can study (like maybe we in the lab of an alien master race, or in the imagination of computer, or created by a non-interventionist god) but since this is by definition unknowable we can?t answer the ?why? question (not with science, as you say, but not with religion either, there is simply no way of knowing).

Is there any point asking it? Evolution makes the ?why? look like a meaningless as well as unanswerable question. The idea of purpose comes from our experience that things which are designed are made by someone, for a reason. Without knowledge of evolution life on earth would have looked designed and therefore the question ?for what purpose? makes sense. But once you understand that our perception of design is false then the question ?for what purpose? also becomes meaningless.

I think of it like this: say I walked out of my house and there was an arrow marked out in stones on the pavement, it would be perfectly reasonable for me to ask ?what does it mean, what is its purpose, who put it there?? but if I had a security camera and wound it back to see that actually what looked like an arrow placed there purposefully was just a random scattering of stones kicked by a boy on his way to school the question ?what does it mean, what is its purpose? would become redundant (unless I was the kind of person who looks for portents in in tealeaves etc?whether you want to call that ridiculous is more about how polite you are than how credible the idea is)

I can see that a completely deist god could be compatible with science (although not all that satisfying to believe in), but once you start adding characteristics like ?Love? I think you are starting to create a hypothesis which needs to be tested against what we know of the world. Why a god of love? Why not a god of hate? Or a god of some other emotion only understood by squirrels. How could we possibly know?

You say that an anthropomorphic view of god is ridiculous. I don?t know how to think about a ?god of love? except in terms of the human emotion of love (i.e. anthropomorphically). The ?God of Love? hypothesis seems to propose that god is ?like us? in that he is characterised by a human emotion, and loves us particularly. Which runs smack against the reality of evolution which says that human beings, and our emotions are not specially created but just another by-product of natural selection.

?..this is the crunch of it ?There be God of Love who created the universe, which then after zillions of years in one corner gave rise to a runaway process of natural selection which happened to throw up an organism whose reproductive success was facilitated by a particular pattern of endorphin release which somehow corresponded with the characteristic which defined the creator of the universe?.who had been waiting all these years to start having relationships with these creatures??my head hurts. I just don?t get how that works.

To Grimma you use the get out clause ?There is always the problem that when you have reached the boundaries of what is observable scientifically, you cannot be sure that there isn't something beyond. Further scientific progress may allow you to break through that boundary, but you will eventually come across another boundary - and the same problem arises again.? ? but then you say the idea of the ?god of the gaps? is primitive and intellectually indefensible. Isn?t this the same thing?