to find many aspects of religion incomfortable?

[MyHeadIsAMinefield]

I'm not religious. I am an atheist, however am not militant about it and respect the views of others. I wish I was religious myself at times and have found myself envious of those who do believe in a god.

I do however find many things about religion quite uncomfortable, and I'm not entirely sure why. I'm currently sat opposite a man on the train who has repeatedly said Allahu Akbar to himself whilst looking me in the eye. This has made me uncomfortable.

When entering in to conversation with someone who had strong religious views recently, I explained that I was not religious, and did not believe in a god. I didn't say why, I didn't try to disprove what they believed in, I just expressed my view. This person has not spoken to me since. I'm fine with this, however if I chose not to speak to them simply because they were religious I would likely be accused of discrimination or bullying. Again, very uncomfortable.

It makes me uncomfortable when I ask friends for advice or am simply engaged in conversation and the one friend I have who is very religious tells me it is part of God's plan or to just trust in god. This makes me uncomfortable, and I don't feel comfortable discussing my views, as being an atheist is so frowned upon by so many.

I guess religion just makes me feel exceptionally uncomfortable at times and I'm not entirely sure why. I don't believe in god, but it would be nice to live in a world where the idea god doesn't make you feel... weird. Where discussion was open and it wasn't an awful thing to be an atheist.

Does any of this make any kind of sense? Or do I just sound completely nuts?

I sm not a "God botherer" Don't

Well you can’t be, you’re right.

So science comes with it a belief in absolute truth, an established orthodoxy which governs how its followers think and act. Scientists gather together in social groups of like-minded individuals. Those groups often reinforce the accuracy of their beliefs and the foolishness of non believers. I agree. They rely on funding coming in from sources with their own agenda too and woe betide anyone that doesn't toe the line.

I always feel sorry for people who have no belief in God. feel there must be an enormous chasm, that perhaps they feel but wouldn't be aware of

Thank cool, but I'm apostate, so I know what I'm missing. No chasm here

Dont

I thought you God botherers were supposed to be nice.

You remind me of the man in the movie Witness who harasses the Amish because they were known for not hitting back.

It's a particular type of nastiness to expect to be able to insult religious people but expect them not to call you out on it.

Er, ok.

It's a particular type of nastiness to expect to be able to insult religious people but expect them not to call you out on it.

Couldn’t agree more!

So do I

My DM is very fervent in her beliefs, although she has a number of atheist friends. It’s almost as if she doesn’t believe that they don’t believe in God at all- she thinks they are just missing the point or that they do need God and haven’t realised. Like they are ignoring God rather than that there is no God. Subsequently she invites them to events at her church a lot or mentions God in conversations. She gets very cross when they are critical of God. She doesn’t see that her need to share her beliefs with them makes them uncomfortable to. It is strange to observe as I prefer to keep any beliefs to myself rather than inflicting anything on friends.

Yokatsu

So science comes with it a belief in absolute truth, an established orthodoxy which governs how its followers think and act. Scientists gather together in social groups of like-minded individuals. Those groups often reinforce the accuracy of their beliefs and the foolishness of non believers

You have never studied anything to do with science have you? You're statement above is the exact opposite of what science is.

Scientists actively try to disprove each other all the time, that's actually a loose description of the scientific method.

Develop a hypothesis from observable evidence, make predictions based on that evidence and then actively seek to disprove them. If the hypothesis cannot be disproved it becomes a valid theory.

You are correct that science evolves over time as our understanding of the natural world is improved, however its key to note that all scientific theories are reasonable and the best explanation at the time of the observable evidence.

I would contrast that with religion, which actively does not evolve or change in any real way, in fact it resists change other than when forced due to scientific discoveries that completely refute religious positions. These positions then get conveniently 're-interpreted' to be allegory instead of fact.

The idea that scientists just 'make things up' and then convince other scientists to agree with them and create an 'orthodoxy' is complete nonsense and actually displays your lack of knowledge.

The only other people I have ever spoken to who come out with drivel like that are the young earth creationists that have just turned up in my home town and are currently trying to recruit in the local schools for their reality-denying twaddle.

I can assure you that the only people who create an 'orthodoxy' of 'absolute truth' based on nothing but supposition and outright bullshit are the religious I'm afraid.

I cannot get my head around why anyone would believe in a god, much less worship him if he is real.
^This and
I find all religions akin to cults to be honest that rely on brain washing.
^This

I think Stephen Fry hit the nail on the head.

If the hypothesis cannot be disproved it becomes a valid theory

And a valid theory is... an orthodoxy!! Google it its actually part of the definition of word orthodoxy!

And who decides when a theory becomes an accepted orthodoxy? Do scientists not have to present their papers for peer review....

I have no problem with scientific method, its one of the best bits of science. I have a problem with scientists who forget that scientific method may leave them ultimately on the wrong side of history.

I would contrast that with religion, which actively does not evolve or change in any real way, in fact it resists change other than when forced due to scientific discoveries that completely refute religious positions

In a way you are right.

Religion at its heart believes in a god. That is unchanging. But you are also wrong.
Dogma does change in reaction to how the world changes and what we learn about it. Just like your description of science, another way religion and science are alike.

Heres the rub though.

You cannot disprove the existence of a God, you can disprove writings in the bible but not the presence of god. Not one paper has done that, even rampant atheist Steven Hawking essentially allows for nothing or something that fills that nothing. Its sheer arrogance and nievety to say otherwise.

Whether you choose to think of that void as something or nothing. Which ultimately comes down to belief. Religion is unchanging in its belief that god fills the nothing, many (note not all and many scientists ARE religious) and unchanging
In that nothing can exist and there ismo need for God to fill the void.

And i managed to have that discussion without reverting to assumptions about anyones achievements, knowledge or ability. Just a discussion about the facts well at least how they are at present

Yokatsu

A key difference being that science is changed by... scientists.

Religion is changed by... Certainly not priests...

It's changed by science and social pressure, not from within.

Also you're making the 'false equivelence' mistake here I'm afraid.

You think that because you cannot prove God exists, but I can't prove he doesn't, that both our positions are equal. They really aren't.

They would only be equal if the likelihood of either of them being true was exactly 50/50

There is literally no evidence of any kind to support your position.

I'm interested if you apply this same logic to all the areas of your life?

Default belief in something you have been told about for no other reason than it cannot be proved to be false. This is why atheists often compare the theist position to 'believing in fairies'. It's not because they are saying God is a fairy or anything like that, it's because you don't believe in fairies (I assume), but they cannot be proven to not exist. Therefore why don't you?

Please see 'Russell's Teapot' for a more in depth explanation of this simple refutation.

I don't believe a god/gods exist, and I feel very uncomfortable knowing that significant numbers of people do, and arrange their likes/dislikes/behaviours/prejudices around these fictional entities.

Why Stoat?
I'm a non believer, but don't feel uncomfortable that a significant number of people have a faith. What are you afraid of? How can you be afraid of something that doesn't exist?

I've never really understood why people who are religious have such a problem with atheists. As one myself,I wouldn't dream of questioning someone why they believe in a god,or trying to 'convert them to atheism'. But I have frequently found that just admitting that I'm an atheist is like a red rag to a bull with some people. They seem to make it their mission to convince me that I should believe in god.

Lonicera: I think it's because when it comes down to it, you can't argue with belief. Once someone has said "I don't care whether X is true or not, it's just what I believe," not matter what the context, I get twitchy.

I've never really understood why people who are religious have such a problem with atheists. As one myself,I wouldn't dream of questioning someone why they believe in a god,or trying to 'convert them to atheism'. But I have frequently found that just admitting that I'm an atheist is like a red rag to a bull with some people. They seem to make it their mission to convince me that I should believe in god.

I think in the UK it's the other way around. It's atheists who have a problem with theists, as shown by lots of posts on this thread.

Ok so Russels teapot basically suggests that the idea of a teeny tiny teapot orbitting the sun is so ridiculous that nobody should believe in the idea if he wrote it down and its so ridiculous that there is no need to disprove it.

Better hope later generations don't find a teapot as the analogy breaks down somewhat....

It actually demonstrates the absolute worst of science and science orthodoxy.

Established science orthodoxy suggests that a teapot orbitting the sun is ridiculous.

Therefore it is not worthwhile investing whether a orbitting teapot might exist.

So therefore anyone who belives in an orbitting teapot is clearly inferior in intellect and understanding.

Hang on a sec doesnt this look suspiciously familiar...

Science has had plenty of orbitting teapots in its time, ironically Darwin being one of them.

Yokatsu... Wow. It takes a lot to suprise me but... Wow. 😳

^key difference being that science is changed by... scientists.

Religion is changed by... Certainly not priests...

It's changed by science and social pressure, not from within.^

Firstly how do you define in and outside the church.... does a worshipper count as inside the church for example Henry VIII defender of the faith who completely changed Christianity in england. Or what about papul balls that contradict other papul bulls?

Cos the ordination of women into the church of England was voted for by the general populous not officials within the church at all...

You might want to take a look at the work of Thomas Cranmer... while youre at it.

So were these as a result of societal presssure or as a result of people (religious or otherwise) observing the world they lived in and evolve their othodoxy to better fit the world in which they live (wait a minute what does science do).

Conversely how would you define a scientist? Or someone from within? And science is never influenced by society... cos there is no pressure to support established othodoxy or financial pressure ever

^You think that because you cannot prove God exists, but I can't prove he doesn't, that both our positions are equal. They really aren't.

They would only be equal if the likelihood of either of them being true was exactly 50/50^

Who judges what the chance of either of them being true is?

Go to my local evangelical church and they will tell you the chance of God existing is 100%.

What is the evidence for it not being 50/50? Or even 80/20 in favour of the orbitting teapot God.

Until its proved Its just, belief dressed as fact.

I think the problem many have with religion is the evil done in its name; from the Crusades to child rape by the Catholic Church to Islamic terrorism, I can't think of a single 'force' which has unified so many deranged and evil people.

Although many people manage to be religious without doing evil things, the only way they can do this (in many religions) is by ignoring aspects of their faith. Anyone Christian who doesn't want to go to prison needs to ignore vast swathes of their Good Book oh no, god doesn't actually mean to stone the rape victim, it's allegorical

OP, listening to repetitive chants even at modest volume whilst in a confined communal space can be an uncomfortable experience if you are not ‘in the zone’ with the chanter. The chants don’t have to be religious to jangle. If your fellow passenger had treated you to an endless round of ‘Why does my heart feel so bad?’, you’d probably have been chewing your seat cover soon enough – unless he was actually Moby. On top of this, it can’t be denied that the phrase Allahu Akbar has developed unfortunate connotations in the minds of Westerners.

It’s a difficult one. I do remember getting caught up in a Hare Krishna procession on the high street once and quite enjoying falling into step with the jaunty, hypnotic rhythm for a while. I guess that was out in the open though and I could make a swift exit down a side street when it started to get too much.

Just to add, it’s surprising that the man in the train was staring at you since a lowered gaze in the presence of unknown women would be more the expected manner within Islam. In any case, nobody likes being stared at, whether by a chanter or a non-chanter and I do understand that the combination of a fixed gaze and a chant could be quite overwhelming.

Actually I tend to think you should make like a magnolia wall whilst in a train in the company of strangers unless it’s evident that there is a shared wish to exchange pleasantries. Activities such as pimple popping, chin hair removal, eating tuna sandwiches, engaging in enthusiastic snogging or chanting should probably be reserved for more private spaces.

Turning to your second example, I’ve been befriended by a Christian and then dropped like a hot potato once it became clear that the possibility of me converting was low. For me the experience was reminiscent of having a young swain cultivate your company up to the point he realises sex isn’t in the offing whereupon he dumps you unceremoniously.