Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

to think it is rude to persistently refer to God/Allah/etc. as an "imaginary friend"

815 replies

AtheneNoctua · 05/09/2008 09:04

even after asked not to by several posters who have stated they found it offensive.

OP posts:
ruty · 11/09/2008 22:51

didn't post on your thread Iorek but ds recounted something similar on our recent holiday. Didn't want to talk about it too much but it was a bit freaky.

IorekByrnison · 11/09/2008 23:02

I can understand why you didn't want to post about it, ruty. I'm laughing about it now but the truth is, for a few hours I was more frightened than I've ever been in my life. Dd wasn't frightened at all (but then, as I remembered at the time, neither was Carol Ann in Poltergeist before the people in the TV took her...)

Clearly I've seen too many horror films.

ruty · 11/09/2008 23:11

LOL. I still can't sleep in the dark actually, how pathetic is that. My children are fine about it but i can't.

IorekByrnison · 11/09/2008 23:25

Oh poor you - it must have been bad. I do sympathise. I'm OK in the dark, but the idea of going back to the villa still makes me a tiny bit uneasy if I think about it too hard.

It might be a hazard of being agnostic that if something like this happens we can neither recite the 23rd psalm and trust in God to protect us, nor with absolute confidence dismiss it saying "I know this isn't happening because it's just not rational and there is a rational explanation for everything".

ruty · 12/09/2008 00:12

yes exactly! such a bummer. actually it wasn't the recent incident that has me made me a can't sleep in the dark person, but old childhood experiences. I would love to have certainty either way though, i envy those who have it.

AMumInScotland · 12/09/2008 09:21

SGB - so if I promise that the God I believe in -

doesn't float about going Woooo
doesnt't insist on obedience
doesn't require to be worshipped
and obeys a set of natural laws, even if we're not perfectly sure what those are yet

  • would that rate an upgrade to "not completely implausible"?
UnquietDad · 12/09/2008 17:39

For me, it's a bit like the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot. You can't prove either of them "don't exist" (although if they do they are pretty damn good at hiding). Take Nessie: the evidence for is some shaky film, some blurred photos and the testimony of people who may or may not have been drunk at the time. The evidence against is the fact that extensive searches have failed to turn her up, including the 500-probe sonar sweep of the Loch which the BBC did a few years ago. On balance, I choose to think Nessie is probably a romantic myth bolstered by a great bit of tourist publicity. And the weight of evidence is in my favour.

Obviously we can't "sweep" the Universe for gods, but nobody's found any so far. Or if people claim they have, then those claims have to be set against the sheer unlikelihood of such a thing, and the fact that there's not a scrap of proper evidence.

It's pretty crazily unlikely - mind-bogglingly so - that The Truth about how the universe is governed can be found in one creation myth originating in one 2000-year period on one little rock in one modest solar system in one of squillions of galaxies.

TheFallenMadonna · 12/09/2008 17:42

Did you see this? The Royal Society!

ruty · 12/09/2008 17:44

I'm sorry but there are some very intelligent athiests here who repeat their rather reductionist arguments over and over again.

UnquietDad · 12/09/2008 17:44

Well, he's a Rev and a Professor, I note. Arrange the words "interest", "of" and "conflict" into a well-known phrase.

ruty · 12/09/2008 17:45

blimey that is scary FM!

UnquietDad · 12/09/2008 17:46

Assuming that I'm one of the intelligent atheists, the reason we do so is because there are so very few ways of, basically saying blue is blue. Again and again. And hitting your head on the desk as you do so.

ruty · 12/09/2008 17:46

most vicars are not creationists

ruty · 12/09/2008 17:47

hitting my head here too UD.

UnquietDad · 12/09/2008 17:48

I actually do my best to try and use a variety of arguments and analogies, i thought.

TheFallenMadonna · 12/09/2008 17:57

I think it's more that it's a bit to be presented with a fairly straightforward argument as though you won't have thought of that for yourself.

But then I tend not to get involved in any "what's the evidence" arguments because they're obviously going to go nowhere.

There isn't a conflict of interests in a Church of England minister expressing views on creationism in schools really. Especially when he is also a biologist and speaks for the Royal Society, which is fairly scientifc after all.

I do notice though that the RS spokesman said ?Teachers need to be in a position to be able to discuss science theories and explain why evolution is a sound scientific theory and why creationism isn?t.? Which isn't quite what the headline is suggesting...

ruty · 12/09/2008 18:30

Christians and other religious people use reductionist arguments all the time and I don't like it when they do. But what stuns me about so many athiest arguments is that they vary so little from the religios fundamentalist arguments. There is no grey area, no space in between what we know, no, dare I say it, humility. When there is so much unknown in science, so much mystery and so many contradictions, when people here are talking about a God that is inextricably linked with the laws of physics and the natural world, a God we don't understand or even know for sure is there, a God that generations of people have tried to explain in words and metaphors from the beginning of time, a God of which our understanding evolves with our scientific discoveries, I don't understand why athiests keep saying 'Believing in God is like believing in Thor/Fairies/Father Christmas/Loch Ness Monster/David Icke's Lizards etc. and therefore you lot are undeserving of even the slightest amount of civility'

Not to mention that there is no comprehensive moral and philosphical framework behind any of those things.
Still believe being Agnostic is the only true state of mind.

onager · 12/09/2008 18:40

Just saw the article. The thing is that we don't say in physics "some people believe that everything is made up of the four elements fire,earth, water and air" before getting down to the lesson.

And what if we said about sex education "it was self-defeating to dismiss as wrong or misguided the 10 per cent of pupils who believed that babies are brought by the stork"

Teaching isn't about what the kids believe already. The idea is to teach them the subject of the lesson.

Cathpot · 12/09/2008 18:41

Religion has appeared in every human society I have ever heard of in a splendid plethora of forms, and even in sites of stone age societies there is evidence of ritual and burial which would suggest beliefs about the body after death. How about the theory that religion is adaptive in the Darwinian sense (and passed on by 'meme' a la Dawkins) It promotes group cohesion and cooperation and gives the illusion of control in tricky circumstances, which is presumable good for mental health.

The problems with religions we can all cite ie intolerance to groups holding different beliefs and being moved to violence for these beliefs, are a result generally of the organised power structures that arise when clever people get hold of ideas which give them control over large groups of people. (the same of course is true of non religius ideas such as communism) We are a hierachical species, we gravitate towards groups 'like us' for mutual support, it is not surprising religions grow and become powerful forces and then are manipulated by people who enjoy power and status through those religious structures.

In saying I can see why rural african communities continue to enthusiatically embrace christinity long after most missionaries have gone home I do not of course excuse the huge disservice the catholic church has done to the couse of HIV prevention. However, to be honest in the poorest communities it is a moot (sp?) point as access to condoms is so limited both finacially and culturally. I could rant at length her about the plight of the average rural african woman and her staggering lack of choices, buts thats another thread. I also know that the Bush administration has slashed funding for HIV projects if they include condoms rather than exclusively abstinence, due to pressure from the religious right.

This is where religion matters, not the personal beliefs of very nice liberal minded MNs but the organised beliefs of the relgions on the world stage, and here they are often not only distasteful but in my opinion immoral. This is my line in the sand really with religious believers, I can understand why you are personally religious I can not begin to understand why you would want to sign up to the major world religious organsations which is what you are doing when you join a church etc.

Genuinely, why would you want to say eg I am catholic if you do not agree with the intolerant areas of that religion. It would be like supporting the BNP because you liked their environmental policies. If the thrust of the religious organisation you ahve signed up to is doing bad things, prompting intolerance of eg gays, condom using etc, then by signing up you are supporting these views how ever much you protest you dont believe them yourself.

TheFallenMadonna · 12/09/2008 18:46

Onager - I think the difference is that children will challenge you on evolution and creationism in Science lessons. They bring it up. Which is where you explain about scientific theorising. And go over half of UQD's favourite diagram .

onager · 12/09/2008 18:54

Oh they can ask. I think most teachers would be pleased if anyone took enough interest to ask a question.
And yeah that may be when you explain about scientific theorising, but not explaining about god as though it were a valid alternative.

TheFallenMadonna · 12/09/2008 18:57

But reading what the Royal Society spokesman has said, that is what they're talking about. Which isn't at odds with government adivce at all. So I'm not quite sure what the Times is on about really.

onager · 12/09/2008 19:02

But the guy says "It would be better, he said, to treat creationism as a world view". So what would that involve if not suggesting it might be true. Can you give an example of how that might play out in practice?

IorekByrnison · 12/09/2008 19:07

Think FM is right.

That headline bears very little relation to what the article reports this man to have said.

I don't know whether he is right or not. But if it is the case that there are schools where a high proportion of pupils are coming in with Creationist views, then it seems obvious that this is a problem that would need to be addressed by the teacher, and to dismiss these views without discussion would, as he says, be "self-defeating".

IorekByrnison · 12/09/2008 19:08

Onager, my understanding of treating something "as a world view", is that this is the "some people believe" approach. Not at all the same thing as saying it is true.

Swipe left for the next trending thread