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

[AtheneNoctua]

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

twinnie

'The problem most unbelievers have with those that do believe is the worry that the believers have someting worth having that they, the unbelievers) have not themselves managed to get'

I think some of us find this a tad patronising and superior and dare I say it a little unchristian to be so sure that we all want what you've got
I can assure you I don't

Twinnylinnie, maybe it was this that people didn't like

The problem most unbelievers have with those that do believe is the worry that the believers have someting worth having that they, the unbelievers) have not themselves managed to get>>

What you have I certainly don't want and shudder at the very idea.

The anti faith schools thing I tend to have sympathy with. But Sarah Palin..

She won't be VP because of her religious belief, or at least not directly. She is receiving no special treatment because of it. She is a candidate in an democratic election (potential chad scandals notwithstanding).

Okay, bad choice of words I agree. But there are some people (both on here and in the meeja) who are so anti-religion that 'atheist' doesn't quite seem to cover it.

And yes, I take the point that people object to the roles the church plays in public life, and FWIW I agree with them (I'm not CoE!). And faith schools are clearly an idea that should not be invented now if they didn't already exist. But they exist because historically there was a demand for what they provided, and continue to exist (even without the new Labour sycophantic rhetoric on faith schools) because the churches own the land and buildings and no govt could afford to buy them out. Posts on here (and articles in the media) do sometimes give the impression that religious schools had been deliberately invented by devious Christians in order to offend and deprive non-believers, which is clearly not the case.

The whole debate gets pretty complex, specially when awkward cusses like me start arguing for the opposite of what a lot of people might expect.

Although I'm a Christian, if I was in charge I'd get rid of a huge amount of the historical link between church and state that slug and pruners have mentioned.

I'd have no state faith schools. No bishops getting an automatic place in the House of Lords. No blasphemy law specific to Christianity, but a blanket "no discrimination/no incitement to violence" law which covered everyone.

I've referred to god as an imaginary friend before (in fact I reckon sgb nicked it off me)

because IMO that's exactly what he is.
It's not a personal attack on a fellow MNer, it's my genuine opinion. A Christian's relationship with god in my opinion closely resembles the relationship between a child and an imaginary friend - it serves a very similar psychological purpose on several levels (displacement of resonsibility for decisions, abdication of responsibility for wrongdoing, emotional comfort when human rekationships aren't providing it, etc) and it's a legitimate analogy IMO because it illustrates exactly why I personally think religion isn't a healthy influence on an adult human psyche.

You may not like this interpretation of the God phenomenon, but I don't think you can order me to stop contributing it to debates about religion on a public forum. Well, you could probably make an argument that it was a personal attack on God, but I'm pretty sure he's not a MNer

Frogs - Aloha used to talk of being not 'atheist' but 'anti-theist'.

I agree with your analyis of 'the state of faith schools within the state' - but think that a good compromise would be exactly what the catholic church is saying - that whilst they may continue to run a faith-affected curriculum, they should not, if state funded, discriminate in their admission procedure. That seems a good and ethical stance for them to have taken.

And, now that we have Academies - which endow curriculum and values alongside investment - the faith aspect of the curriculum is even harder to remove!

TBH I'm much less bugged by the "imaginary friend" tag than I am about some of the other things that people say about religious belief. For instance, despite my belief in God, I still take full responsibility for my actions and decisions, and the church does not teach me to do anything else. So, I often don't recognise people's descriptions of why religion is a bad thing as having anything to do with the religion I follow.

When people set up that kind of "straw man" to ridicule it, and think they have proved how stupid I am, I find it rather annoying.

God is a mumsnetter.

I know because I just tried to change my nickname to God and it's already in use.

QED, obviously.

What a lot of fuss over a bit of teasing! To me it seems a bit ironic to start a thread to attack and be mean to real people just because they say something flippant about a being they don't even think exists!
Anyhow, surely if you are truly religious you should turn the other cheek and comfort yourself that your enemies will be sizzling in hell while you look down smugly from heaven at them roasting on pitchforks for all eternity!

I don't think you're stupid by any means, but I do think you're being disingenuous if you're claiming that Christianity isn't didactic and prescriptive towards its adherents. And it's a pretty strange (or perhaps a bit deluded?) Christian church-goer who doesn't consider the will of God in his/her life choices or take solace in his/her 'faith' when earthly relationships aren't providing adequate emotional and spiritual support

I am sorry you felt I patronised you , It was not my intention but if we are pulling each other apart may I say you are mistaken in believing I spend hours of my day in rituals, in fact I am not religious at all and take part in no rituals of any kind. Neither did I say you wanted what I have. I am not deluded, neither am I aggresive, Have I been patronised do you think?

I think they're meant to shed tears of grace and compassion, not gaze smugly

Well, many Christian churches are quite prescriptive, but it's not a basic requirements of Christianity. I guess for e there's a big difference between what the core of Christianity is about, and how it has been practised and what it has been used to justify. The church I am now part of is definitely not prescriptive.

I have a Christian faith and I do not recognise my character from what is posted here:

From Snarky - "A Christian's relationship with god in my opinion closely resembles the relationship between a child and an imaginary friend - it serves a very similar psychological purpose on several levels (displacement of resonsibility for decisions, abdication of responsibility for wrongdoing, emotional comfort when human rekationships aren't providing it, etc) and it's a legitimate analogy IMO because it illustrates exactly why I personally think religion isn't a healthy influence on an adult human psyche."

Snarky - I don't at all mind you calling God an imaginary friend as that is what he is. I do very much mind you characterising me as mindless, stupid, unable to have fulfilling human relationships, a person who abdicates responsibility. I mind because I am a marital/drug and alcohol psychotherapist and none of these things apply to me.

I also don't think my enemies will be sizzling in hell while I'm in heaven as I believe in neither. And I don't believe in ghosts. Nor that the earth was formed in 7 days. Nor that dinosaurs were put here as a practical joke. And I think that faith schools should be abolished. And that there should be no link with church and state. And I'm not anti-gay, anti-sex, anti-masturbation.

I'm a liberal, psychotherapist, Christian not a feckin nutter

Yes, Christian doctrine is very laissez-faire. And of course the scriptures themselves steer well clear of telling Christians how they should live their lives.

Pull the other one, it's got bells on it

They do steer clear of telling us how we should live if we don't interpret them like that and don't pay attention to the stuff written in a patriarchal time or at a certain point in history.

a lot of people misinterpret the words. "Women should cover their head in church" has cock all to do with hats for example.

Twinny, you now say you are not religious, but just now you said

Have you lost your faith in those few minutes?

The gospels are the foundation of the Christian faith though, aren't they? If you're ignoring all the bits that tell you to do/avoid things you'd rather make your own mind up about, you're not a Christian, you're some kind of weird post-modern hybrid with an imaginary friend!

twinnie
'The problem most unbelievers have with those that do believe is the worry that the believers have someting worth having that they, the unbelievers) have not themselves managed to get'

how is this not saying you have something we want????????

Well, at the heart of the gospels, Jeseus said "Love God, and love your neighbour as yourself". It's not exactly detailed rules and regulations!

Yes, but he did say quite a lot of other less open-ended things too, didn't he?

Oh, and yes I can interpret what the Bible says in the light of modern ideas and understanding rather than taking it as a specific set of rules straight from the mouth of God. Liberal Christianity does exactly that.

Yes, and I can claim that the centre of a black hole is where pink elephants go to the toilet

If you've parted company with the (prescriptive and didactic) scriptures, then you're not a Christian, liberal or otherwise.

If you do consider the will of God in your life choices, try to live a life commensurate with Christian values and principles, and take strength and comfort from the presence of God in your life, then I refer you to my earlier post.