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?

exoticfruits
Basically there are two situations regarding "assets" of C of E schools.

"Voluntary Aided" - the Church owns the school buildings and pays for the majority of the repair and maintenance.
"Voluntary Controlled" - the State owns the school buildings and pays for the majority of the repair and maintenance.

Whoever owns the buildings, they are, believe me, only "book" assets. They are much more a drain on resources, than sources of wealth!

But yes, if the State takes over the Voluntary Aided schools they will presumably have to buy the buildings.

Exotic - 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?

Yes, why not, they were paid for to support the education of ordinary people in this country, that is what they should be used for.

The churches happened to be trustees of that role at the time, now it is no longer appropriate.

I think the state would be well within its rights to say no state funding for schools which don't have basic non-discrimination policies at the very least.

Himalaya

It's late, and I haven't much time - but for a start.

I believe in "God is Love" because at a certain point in my life, much to my surprise, personal experience convinced me that there was more to existence than was accounted for in my up to then totally "rationalistic" "Scientific" view of things. These experiences were of course subjective in the sense that I experienced them, but they were not all just simply subjective - and thus possibly "hallucinatory" - but involved objective events around me. Were these events knock-down proofs? No - I could have dismissed them as pure coincidences. If I adopted the Dawkinsian approach, I would of course immediately rule out any possibility of their being anything else. However I cannot conceive of any way that Dawkins and his disciples could ever be persuaded by any evidence, unless God were a total tyrant who literally coerced humans into belief. Such a God clearly does not exist - and if [s]he did, I'm not sure I would want to have much to do with God.

Have these sorts of events happened since my "conversion"? Yes - not often, but then I am extremely suspicious of those who go on and on about "miracles" as if they were everyday events. They have happened enough to support me through times of doubt.

Do I then expect others to believe because I say that I have had these experiences? Of course not. Many will not have had these experiences. Others may have had them, and, because of their basic philosophy, have not recognised them for what they are.

Incidentally it is "God is Love", not "Love is God" - which might indeed lead to anthropomorphisation, we start with a human idea of "Love" and make that God. I insist that I do not have any "picture" of God - what I believe is that the whole of existence owes its origins and is underpinned by a quality/force/whatever (words very inadequate because of our necessarily limited viewpoint inside a 4 dimensional space-time continuum), which can best be called "Love", because it is when we exhibit the characteristics of Love in out lives, that we are most in tune with the ultimate creative and sustaining principle behind existence.

This of course is "Revelation". In fact, I believe that "God is Love" is the very core of the Christian message - and everything else is at best only commentary. It has to be a Revelation, because you can't work it out from looking at the world around, which so often seems to be attracted to hatred, violence, domination etc.etc. Is it really true that the meek are blessed? Don't make me laugh - unless what we see of proximate events is not an accurate refelection of what is ultimately true.

However if it is true that God is Love then it allows me to say that all those tendencies which cause an increase in hatred are evil - not just proximately but ultimately. So Nazism, Stalinism, the Inquisition, racism, bigotry etc.etc. are evil not just because they cause violence, torture, killing etc. but because they oppose Love, the true nature of God. And so I am not entirely joking when I refer to such as the Daily Mail and the Sun as "citadels of Satan" (OK I am joking but the joke has a point), because they specialise in appealing to the worst side of human nature.

Could this be mere "wishful thinking". Of course, which is why to believe, there has to be an element of "Revelation". Believe it or not, I am naturally a Sceptic. I had very little if any interest in God, faith, Church etc. before 1974 - my interests were entirely in the fields of the "Arts" and, especially, Science. I wasn't even a "seeker" as I thought that, even if God existed, looking for him/her/it was a pretty hopeless activity.

I have a number of very inadequate analogies (as all analogies are) as to how this all fits in with my perfectly orthodox view of Science and how it works in investigating proximate processes, while leaving room that ultimate ones might work quite differently, but I haven't time now, and I've bored you enough for one post.*

However just to say that "God of the Gaps" is emphatically not the same as what I am proposing. "God of the Gaps" tries to explain anything not currently explicable by Science as due to God. As Science inevitably advances, so "God of the Gaps" retreats - although there are those, such as Young Earth 6 day Creationists, who make a stand, but only at the expense of being correctly derided as anti-Scientific and Irrational.

What I am claiming is that the ultimate level of reality will always be beyond the reach of Science, because there is no way that Science will ever know that it has reached the ultimate level - there could always be something "over and above". Thus the only way to have any knowledge of the ultimate level is through some sort of revelation.

*I'll bore you tomorrow with one of these analogies, if that's OK with you.

Regards and Best Wishes

I am still here, reading with interest but not confident to join in some parts of the debate!

DontmindifIdo, yes, both of the friends are very strong characters with strong opinions on everything. I know one better than the other though. She can be a little unpredictable - she recently had a landmark birthday and had a go at all the well-wishers who wrote on her facebook profile because they didn't "allow" her to feel bad about getting older.

That's interesting what you said about any admittance of faith on my part making them feel like they have to defend themselves.

The church set up schools because they were the only people interested. Of course they are 'book' assets and a drain in many cases. The land was generally donated by someone- you can't expect the state to just say 'we like that- we will have it' without a fight on their hands about the legality of it!
All the church schools that I have taught in have the majority of parents not being Cof E- they are the only school and they take those in the catchment area first before any other consideration.

FrankH

Thanks for your reply which i have really tried to get my literalist brain around.I take from it that god is another dimension to reality?

I still don't know how you square the knowable/unknowable question. Without wanting to dissect your personal experience, the question "is it a coincidence" is exactly the kind of question science is good at answering, given enough data. Your statement that god stuff can't be investigated by science seems like the convenient defense of an idea seeking to avoid being challenged - like homeopaths saying that RCTs can't possibly test homeopathy, or psychics saying that the presence of sceptics upsets the force.

Yes, it's this bit "how investigating proximate processes, while leaving room that ultimate ones might work quite differently" that I am most interested in. If you always have to allow for the possibilitu of an unknowable spirit world that sometimes interferes with the physical one in unknowable ways, how can you possibly do science?

On your proximate versus ultimate evil point, I don't take much comfort from the idea of morality delivered by revelation. It's nice that yours is liberal and I'm sure we agree on most practical ethics. But for other people revelation has told them homosexuality is a sin, mixed marriage is wrong, honor killing is ok etc...

I also suspect that racism and, bigotry (in group/outgroup discrimination), violence and susceptibility to totalitarian leadership are human traits with an evolutionary basis that go back a long way - they are as deeply intwined in our nature as Love. Why would a god of love allow his best loved creatures to have such a fatal design flaw?

I was wondering that. Does one of the variables in any fair test have to be "presence/absence of supernatural powers"?

And on a minor point, I didn't realise that there were faith schools that faith criteria in their admissions procedures- what makes them faith schools, then?

Sorry- should read "have no faith criteria"

Around 1/2 of CoE schools are "voluntary controlled" - where the church puts less money in and they have to use LA admission criteria.

They still have the church on the board of governors, and a religious character.

.... For example village CoE schools where it would be wrong and quite impacrical to deny children of non church goers access to the only school around.

Himalaya
Sorry for the delay in replying ? I?ve got a lot going on

Thanks for your reply which i have really tried to get my literalist brain around.I take from it that god is another dimension to reality?

It?s more that God?s existence must involve all the dimensions there are ? otherwise we wouldn?t be talking about God. How many dimensions there are, is unknown to us. We are conceptually limited to our 4 dimensional space-time ?universe?, both by our experience of reality, and because our Science is inevitably limited. Even if we find some scientific method and instrumentation to break out of our limitation, and can establish that there is another dimension (5th dimension), and adequately explore that dimension, we are then faced with another dimensional ?boundary?. We would then have no idea whether there is a yet further dimension (6th), until we can break through that ?boundary?, and so on ad infinitum

I still don't know how you square the knowable/unknowable question. Without wanting to dissect your personal experience, the question "is it a coincidence" is exactly the kind of question science is good at answering, given enough data. Your statement that god stuff can't be investigated by science seems like the convenient defense of an idea seeking to avoid being challenged - like homeopaths saying that RCTs can't possibly test homeopathy, or psychics saying that the presence of sceptics upsets the force.

Firstly, I doubt very much that science is much good at answering the question as to whether or not some of the experiences I could relate are ?coincidences?! [I could give an example ? if you are that interested]. One thing which happened years after I became a Christian, is that looking back, there were remarkable ?coincidences? even before I became a believer. To the extent that, even if I hadn?t become a theist, I might wonder whether or not there were more things going on, than those which fitted in with an absolute Atheist philosophy such as that espoused by Richard Dawkins.

Because of the dimensional problems about investigating ultimate reality which I?ve described above, it is inevitable that Science, at least in the purist sense as defined by Dawkinsians, can?t investigate ?God?. Similarly, contra the claims of Fundamentalist Christians and Moslems (and others), there?s no way in which this sort of Science can ever support the existence of God. Theoretically, the Ultimate Reality might well be ?Atheist?. The point is that, despite the assertions he often makes, Science can no more support Dawkins? Atheism, than it can support Fundamentalist Theism. Despite the claim of one of the other posters on this thread, there is a very clear difference between ?I don?t believe in God [because there is no positive proof for]? and ?I believe there is no God [because there is positive proof against or because while there is no positive proof against, the question is so trivial that it?s not worth my bothering about].

Yes, it's this bit "how investigating proximate processes, while leaving room that ultimate ones might work quite differently" that I am most interested in. If you always have to allow for the possibilitu of an unknowable spirit world that sometimes interferes with the physical one in unknowable ways, how can you possibly do science?

?Interferes? is the word at issue. I don?t believe in God the proximal interferer. I believe in God the eternal creator and upholder. You may know that Science has a problem with the ?anthropic principle?. There are of course ways to get around the Strong Anthropic Principle, to turn it into a Weak Anthropic Principle, but all of these suggestions are quite as Scientifically unprovable as the suggestion of God as ultimate creator.
When I have time to get round to it, I?ll post my [very inadequate] analogy as to how I see the relationship between the proximate ? open to being investigated and totally ?explained? by Science, and the ultimate ? not so open, at least at present.

On your proximate versus ultimate evil point, I don't take much comfort from the idea of morality delivered by revelation. It's nice that yours is liberal and I'm sure we agree on most practical ethics. But for other people revelation has told them homosexuality is a sin, mixed marriage is wrong, honor killing is ok etc...

Of course ?revelation? can be claimed by all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons. Thus all claims that ?God tells us to do X? must be treated with extreme suspicion. My personal experiences of God as revealed have been the opposite of that claimed by hate-filled fanatics. And I believe that mine fits in much better with God as ultimate ?creator? ? as Evil and Hatred are essentially parasitic [on Goodness and Love] rather than creative. But I realise your discomfort about morality ultimately being a matter of revelation has some validity.

But you won?t get any more comfort from the idea of morality being derived from ?Science?, which I have heard at least one of Dawkins? disciples (Lewis Wolpert) claim. In fact, that is precisely what such as the Nazis claimed. The sort of ?social Darwinism? which led to the Holocaust already had deep roots, and not just in Germany, well before 1933. As many studies reveal [e.g. ?The struggle to overcome racism? by Nina Jablonski in New Scientist 1 September 2012 pp.26-29], this ?scientific racism? owes its existence to some of most illustrious minds in the ?Enlightenment?, such as Kant. I have some experience of ?scientific racists?, and believe me, all of them derive their racism from ?Science? and not from ?religion?, which they tend to deride vehemently.

I also suspect that racism and, bigotry (in group/outgroup discrimination), violence and susceptibility to totalitarian leadership are human traits with an evolutionary basis that go back a long way - they are as deeply intwined in our nature as Love. Why would a god of love allow his best loved creatures to have such a fatal design flaw?

I agree with you about the probable evolutionary origins of racism and bigotry. In fact, that is what I suggest to my students. But the imperfection of Homo sapiens is absolutely consistent with the Christian view of human status. We are imperfect beings existing in an ?imperfect? existence. If it were only possible for us to be ?good? and ?loving?, it would be difficult to see how morality, right and wrong, had any meaning.

Incidentally it also shows the shallowness of the argument that God cannot exist because bad things happen to good people. If the reason to be ?good? is so that only good things can happen to you, doesn?t that turn goodness into just another facet of self-preservation?

Unfortunately, some versions of religion, including the ?prosperity theology? popular in some Fundamentalist Christian circles, preach what is actually another facet of this sort of puerile argument ? ?worship God, do good, and you?ll get lots of blessings?.

I think that people misunderstand the criteria for entry into church schools. They were the only schools, and then in 1870 the state filled in where there were no church schools. The church schools are community schools and very often, in villages especially, the only school. The first criteria is living in the catchment area.
Problems only come when the school is oversubscribed and you want a place outside the catchment. Parents will put that they specifically want a church school because they are members of the church- with reasons. They will come above others, possibly SN could come first, and 'looked after' DCs will come top, regardless (and so they should).
When I wanted a church school, out of catchment, it was not oversubscribed and so I didn't mention the church side- I put other reasons.
Had it been oversubscribed I would have got the list of criteria for entry, and the numbers who got in and the numbers who got in on appeal- and if I was really keen on the place I would have made my application fit the criteria.
In practice a child from a Hindu, atheist etc family living within the catchment will get a place before a DC from a Cof E family living outside the catchment.
All schools have their criteria. School choice is a myth- it is school choice if room- in any school.

Exotic -

I think you are misunderstanding the school admission rules, in another one of your "nothing to see here folks, it's all fine" posts.

Here are the criteria for my local VA CoE primary.

In order of priority:

1 Looked after children.
2 Siblings
3 Children, one of whose parents is a practising Christian and who attend worship at least once every month for at least the last six months before the allocation of places.
4 Children who live within the parish
5 Any other children.

3 comes before 4, so this means that any child from a churchgoing family anywhere gets priority over a local child from a non churchgoing family.

This isn't unusual, and means in practice that oversubscribed church schools are full up by the time they have offered places to all the children in group 3, so the group 4 criteria don't come into play except to prioritise over children in group 3.

Yes all schools have their criteria, but some practice religious discrimination.

Or take this charming list of priorities, which is for the next school in the Admissions Directory

1 Looked after children
2 Siblings
3 Children of staff
4 Children whose parents or legal guardian regularly attend Our Church.
5 Children with a place in St. Our Nursery.
6 Children whose parents or legal guardian regularly attend other Church of England Churches.
7 Children whose parents or legal guardian regularly attend churches of other Christian denominations.
8 Children from the Parish
9 Any other children.

So in practice a child from a local Hindu, Muslim or Atheist family or whose parents just don't go to church are in category 8. The school has to be pretty unpopular before they start letting in children in category 8.

Are you really suggesting that Muslims, Hindus etc... should start going to church to fit the criteria???

All the C of E schools that I have taught in have 4 before 2 and 3 of your first list. and I don't recognise your second list at all. Of course the Hindu etc doesn't start going to church-they get in as a child of the parish.
I can't speak for the whole country but certainly the schools I know don't have your list at all. The best thing is to go to the LEA and find out.
They don't even take DCs from the nursery first. There is a school where they can't all go from infants to juniors.

Well now you know. Please don't spread misinformation.

In my LEA there are some CoE schools that prioritise local children and some that a fixed proportion of "community" and "foundation" places. But the majority are along the lines of the two I posted.

I find the "nothing to see here" approach very dispiriting. "It's only a little bit of faith based bias- just such a tiny bit-I don't understand why your getting so upset about it"

In my part of Lancashire the priority lists described by Him are normal for VA schools - which there are a lot of. Our village school, the next village school in each direction (mostly CofE, some RC)...so one ends up either having to travel a considerable distance (really needs a car, don't think there's a bus route to either of the least distant non VA schools, country lane too dangerous and too far to cycle ....or maybe get a place in one of the less popular VA schools if you're lucky.

Exotic

Now that you have found out that many church schools are actually much more discriminatory than you previously assumed, has it changed your view as to whether this is reasonable/moral/ok?

Never go by hearsay. It has caused lots of angst in my area where people get their first DC in and expect to get favourable treatment with the second i.e. jump over those living in the catchment, and then they can't get them in.
I have just taken a county at random, Norfolk, because I don't know it and it has lots of rural schools, many C of E and of those I clicked on-catchment area came first.
I would love to see the fuss in my area if staff's DCs jumped the list!!
In my village there are 3 schools because it has grown. The old part has the small C of E school-those who live in the catchment can have a place regardless and those who don't have to attend church (and that is not enough -they have to be actively involved).
It hasn't changed my mind at all Himalaya-I suspect that you are talking about towns.
The moral is never ever just listen to what people say-go and find out. I am obviously wrong in some areas but Himalaya is also wrong in many areas. I am not going to waste my time googling around the country-do your own research if it matters.

It hasn't changed my mind at all Himalaya-I suspect that you are talking about towns.
I'm talking about rural lancashire.

As you say, don't go on hearsay. You need to get the LEA admissions guide for your own area to see if there's a problem or not.

And taking a county I do know-Cumbria. If a rural family with no car lives in a village and the schools within a 10 mile radius are all C of E and there is no public transport (an actual village in mind) do you really think that a churchgoing family are going to come before an atheist family and the LEA are going to supply a taxi for a 24mile round trip each day?! Common sense says they come first. In a town you can walk to another school and why would an atheist family want a church school?

You need to get the LEA admissions guide for your own area to see if there's a problem or not.

Exactly-don't listen to anyone. What happens in my village, Cumbria or Norfolk has no bearing on it at all-it can be completely different.

Exotic -

Do you think it is a problem if some CoE schools give places to the children of churchgoers who live some distance away, and turn away local children?

It sounds like you think it is just fine.

Why not just say that, and defend the discrimination, rather than split hairs about whether it happens in 60% of VA schools or 40%.

As for your over why atheist parents might send their children to a church school.....you teach in church schools which you say are very inclusive of families from all religions and none. I hope they don't get the face from you.

exotic -'Common sense says they come first. ' ..you'd think, wouldn't you. Because you're a fair minded sort of person. It comes as quite a shock to people when they find that the admissions criteria have to be obeyed and they aren't based on common sense.

What is more likely hereabouts to happen is that the non-christian child gets allocated a place in an undersubscribed faith school but not their oversubscribed village one and if you turn it down and ask for the more distant non-faith school then the LEA won't want to pay transport.

Most people just suck it up and sit on the pews for the requisite time.

I don't believe that local children are turned away for churchgoers who live some distance- I don't know of it happening. It may do in towns where there are are schools close together,and the face was because I don't understand why you would choose a church school if they could walk to a non church school. In all the ones that I know (a considerable number) living in the catchment area comes first and the church schools have all faiths and no faiths first, before a single DC out of catchment. The non Christian child will get a place in the oversubscribed village school if they live in the village. In the one that I know best I think I could label about 6 families C of E and the rest are never in church, it is oversubscribed and they live in the catchment area- probably the church going ones are mainly those who applied from outside catchment. No one has to go to church if they live in the right road.