To be irritated by religious views...

[Frume]

I know I'll get flamed here. Of course it goes without saying that you are entitled to believe whatever you believe. And I understand that sometimes people turn to 'God' because that's their last hope. But..

My example that prompted me to write this...

I was on Instagram and catching up with a poor girl that I follow. She is 19 and has battled cancer 3 times. The page is updated by her mum and she says things like:-

'In Him we trust to heal his child'

'This is all part of His plan'

'He knows what he is doing'

Something good happens & then it's, 'God is good' or 'Thank you to Our Father in Heaven for making our prayers come true and healing his child'

Ok. Sure, that was it.. or probably science

The general 'Thoughts and prayers' when there is any kind of disaster. Because obviously that's all that's needed in a time of crisis.

If someone's religion involves human sacrifice, or assuming that women are inferior to men, to that people of one particular race are superior to all others, do we really think that they're entitled to those beliefs, that they should be respected and it would be rude to challenge them?
They're entitled to their beliefs, regardless of what they are. But that doesn't mean you can't challenge them (politely but forcefully if necessary). I hope you'd think I'm entitled to believe in God even if you totally disagreed, just as I think you're entitled not to believe if that's your view.

I'm an atheist. Well, maybe an Agnostic. Even if God exists I wouldn't worship him.

However, saying thoughts and prayers is a sign of respect, acknowledgment and hope. Likewise I don't begrudge a parent saying they feel God helped heal their child provided they don't withdraw actual medical help.

I do think inwardly 'as if it's that easy' but that's my own opinion which is no more or less valid than the mothers.

She may feel the fact the medicine helped (as it doesn't always) is a sign of Gods work. You don't, I don't - but our opinions matter little to this family.

I'd just be happy the young lady is for now Cancer free.

If someone tells me they regularly offer up children, as human sacrifices I should challenge them politely? I don't think so, really. And I'd struggle significantly to be polite to someone who told me that their god said I was automatically inferior to all men.

So when there’s a school shooting in the States and politicians say that their “thoughts and prayers” are with the victims........

I think that would fall under acknowledgment @BertrandRussell - maaaaybr not as sincere as others sentiments.

Religion and faith can bring huge comfort for many they believe this has got them through the hardest of times and who am I to question that

For many their faith is tested to the point it is so painful they struggle to make sense of what they believe

Some just don’t believe

Not one was is right or wrong. I have wished at times I could have the comfort many have from believing but it’s just not there for me

@LittleElle - I'm actually a ray of fucking sunshine

I'm generally pretty live-and-let-live about religions. However, where I really struggle is the type of faith that attributes dreadful things to god testing us. What sort of bastard thinks it's a good idea to strike a child down with a dreadful, agonising incurable disease as a test? Why would you worship them if they did exist?

I've also never really understood the concept of having to come together to worship. I guess it's a hangover from attending a school where church and religious assemblies were compulsory. I used to sit there wondering why we had to keep banging on to god about how wonderful he was, and how arrogant someone would have to be to demand that of his followers - and why we all had to get together at a set time to worship rather than just doing it individually when we chose. One of the vicar's set sermons which he produced at least once a year was on that topic, and he never once came up with an argument that was remotely convincing.

I never understand the sneering towards those who are religious

And I do wonder if they would sneer at someone say like Michelle Obama who many greatly admire and rightly so who is open about her strong religious faith

Or is it just towards those you perceive as not being that intelligent

why we all had to get together at a set time to worship rather than just doing it individually when we chose

It is preferred because you spend time with like-minded people. In today's secular society it is easy to feel cut-off from people who understand your faith. I don't do it myself, but understand why people do. Of course, even if you do go to church, you are not meant to put it out of your mind again until 11am the following Sunday either!

Obviously it's fine if you want to get together with others at 11 a.m. every Sunday to worship, but so often it becomes compulsory - as it was at my school, in fact. It becomes particularly ridiculous when it affects the way the entire country is run, e.g. limited shop opening hours on Sundays.

It becomes particularly ridiculous when it affects the way the entire country is run, e.g. limited shop opening hours on Sundays

Yes, this is annoying for people who aren't religious. I don't think it happens much now though? Except maybe in the Western Highlands.

Actually most of Britain is affected by Sunday hours. Iirc Scotland did away with them already but England and Wales definitely still have 10-4 or 11-5 opening. Don't know about N Ireland though.

The thing is, though, that no-one really thinks that. If someone's religion involves human sacrifice, or assuming that women are inferior to men, to that people of one particular race are superior to all others, do we really think that they're entitled to those beliefs, that they should be respected and it would be rude to challenge them?

All freedoms are limited when they hurt other people, that's how freedom and free society work and is literally core to the concept as we understand it in western political philosophy. So "you wouldn't uphold this freedom to the point it hurt other people" certainly doesn't mean you don't believe in the freedom.

Freedom of religion is inherently freedom from others' enforcement of their spiritual worldview on you, they are two ways of saying exactly the same thing.

Case in point, the free expression of atheism without fear of harm is a direct product of freedom of religion and, by extension, a product of the philosophical journey that brought it.

As a small point, also, people can assume what they like. It is when people act on those assumptions and harm others that it becomes an infringement of other people's freedoms. This is why we demonstrably do not proscribe religions for such things, and tackle instead criminal or civil problems that ensue.

“Yes, this is annoying for people who aren't religious. I don't think it happens much now though? ”

This is an interesting example of one of the ways the Christian lobby works in this country “Oh, don’t worry- it’a only a little bit of Christianity- you’ll barely notice it!”

“Yes, this is annoying for people who aren't religious. I don't think it happens much now though?"

Well, I am in Scotland and I can shop 7 days a week! Plus, I don't attend church anyway

@Babdoc, I'm astonished that you, as a scientist, can come up with that statement. Surely it's just basic science, as well as basic logic, that you can't prove a negative?

Don't be astonished, you've got another one over here, and a doctor earlier in the thread.

"Atheism because science" does not actually make a totally compelling argument, much as people like to parrot it, because science has almost nothing to say on the subject matter and purpose of faith or the decision to have a system of objective morality. Non-overlapping magisteria and all that.

intensiveeveline, Sunday trading hours are very much in force in England in all the bigger shops including supermarkets and garden centres.

@AhhhHereItGoes - She isn't, she's fighting it again and sadly not in a very good way

justarandomcycle, my comment on being a scientist self-evidently wasn't 'atheism because science', as I suspect you well know. It was directed at someone who was a scientist but who nevertheless seriously put forward the argument that god must exist because no-one had produced proof that he doesn't. One of the first principles we all learn in science is that lack of proof that something doesn't exist cannot equate to proof that it does.

I've also never really understood the concept of having to come together to worship.
It does make a difference though (assuming it's voluntary). It focuses your faith, it gives you slightly different viewpoints and things to think about, you get to feel part of something (which some of us don't otherwise have)....

Science is incompatible with religion because when science reaches the cliff edge where current evidence ends it stops and looks for more evidence. Religion says “Nevertheless I believe” and jumps.

Sunday trading hours are very much in force in England in all the bigger shops including supermarkets and garden centres

Yes, I see that when I looked it up. Surprising! I did live down south for about 6 years, but I spent most of Sunday in the pub then so wasn't aware about the shopping

It seems that airport shopping is excluded from these laws.

When I have travelled to Muslim countries, I have often been caught out by the fact that their shops close/have restricted hours on a Friday for religious reasons.

justarandomcycle, my comment on being a scientist self-evidently wasn't 'atheism because science', as I suspect you well know. It was directed at someone who was a scientist but who nevertheless seriously put forward the argument that god must exist because no-one had produced proof that he doesn't. One of the first principles we all learn in science is that lack of proof that something doesn't exist cannot equate to proof that it does.

I rarely get onto this topic when I want to date my intellectual curiosity re religion, because there's a huge wealth of quite good theological discussion available to read and I think this is something of a red herring.

The way I'd phrase it is this. Faith is a particular thing in itself, and scientific proof in the physical world one way or the other is its polar opposite. Prove it is true, or prove it is false, and it ceases to be faith by definition. Which way the proof goes actually doesn't matter, only that there is any.

So given the test for denying faith would be not "is this proven false", but "is this proven either true or false". This is different to a logical assertion, where we can often say if you can't prove it, it cannot be accepted.

ie: faith by definition is predicated on a state of factual uncertainty.