Something I've seen quite a bit on Mumsnet is confusing me slightly

[GeorgianMumto5]

...I often read statements along the lines of, 'I'm an atheist because I there is no God,' and, 'I don't want my child to be taught about your fairy stories [religious teachings],' which is all fair enough but what's confusing me is, aren't these just people's opinions? One person can't provide definitive proof of the absence of a deity, anymore than another can provide definitive proof of the existence of a deity, surely? Or am I missing something?

This is a genuine query - I'm interested to know. I'm not trying to stir up arguments, although I'm happy to be argued with and told that I'm wrong.

As a person with a faith, I'd say it's all a matter of faith - either you believe it, or you don't. If I was without faith, I guess I'd say it's a matter of opinion. In any case, I don't get the absolute confidence people have that there is no God. I think there is, but I couldn't prove it and wouldn't think to tell another peson that I'm right on that topic and they're wrong. Where does all the certainty come from?

niminypiminy, how you choose to live your life is for you to decide. However, if you come to my door to proclaim your faith then you will get short shrift from me. I do you the courtesy of not coming to your door to proclaim the absence of a god/gods and I expect the same courtesy in return.

Religions are absolutely fascinating (in a behavioural and cultural sense) i just dont feel the need to have one of my own.

Unfortunately, I have come across several people who profess themselves to be Christian who believe all Muslims will go to hell, and that people from other Christian sects such as JWs will do so also.

Nimimy - but isn't dubbing him 'the God of Love' pretty much saying that his purpose is to do with creatures capable of feeling love (which if not being downright anthropomorphic at least narrows it down somewhat ), otherwise he could be something like 'the God of vast empty spaces punctuated with bits of space dust and the stars'.

All this we are not worthy, we are inept business does not make sense to me at all, in the context of religions which do seem to suggest a particular relationship between the creator of the universe and one particular organism (after all god didn't incarnate his son as a mushroom...).

How can a lesser being (humans) be 'inept' at understanding the nature of a vastly superior being (god) who knows exactly the capabilities of the lesser being but nevertheless chooses to communicate with them through faint 'glimmers' that he knows they will misunderstand. That is not ineptness on the part of the lesser being but cruelty on the part of the greater power.

....It is like we sent our kids to nursery and the teachers insisted in speaking to them only in Latin, giving them faint and inconsistent glimmers of what they want them to understand, letting them believe that it might please the teacher to sacrifice each other, cut off parts of their body etc... It doesn't sound very loving to me.

Naming, you won't find me coming to your door to try and convert you. It's embarrassing, unpleasant and counterproductive.

Thistledew, I bow to your experience; however these cannot be terribly well-informed people if they believe Jehovah's Witnesses to be Christians, since they are not. (I don't think they, or Muslims are going to he'll, just to confirm.)

Himalaya, can't God be 'the God of the vast spaces of the universe' and the God of Love? Because he's so much more than we can comprehend, doubtless he has purposes that don't relate to us at all. There may be, as far as I know, other incarnations in other places and times. But Jesus is the one we know about, the event through which God communicated with us as clearly as he could.

You misunderstood me. God is probably communicating his being and purposes and mind and love on full beam all the time. It's us who get the glimmers, because amazing as our brains are, they are much smaller than God. But what glimmers we get! When you have one, it's an experience that it is worth all of life to have.

Niminy - well sure I guess god can be anything you want. But it just seems a bit incoherent to me.

I mean when humans first got to know god (or invented him, depending on what your worldview) they thought the sun went round the earth and that stars were pinpricks of light and that humans and animals were fundamentally different kinds of things. So the gods they perceived/invented were particularly concerned with humans, our feelings and wishes, what they did with their lives etc... It made a certain amount of sense given what they knew.

Now we know that we are just another evolved creature on a small rock orbiting a small star somewhere in a vast universe, this idea of god seems a bit parochial. So you say of course he can be the god of Love and vast tracts of nothingness, he may have special spiritual with otherr organisms on earth or elsewhere, there may be a dolphin messiah etc.... It just seems to be packing a lot into the concept of god. It stretches credibility to think this is the same god who glimmered sent Jesus down to atone for man's sins. It just seems so much more likely that this, and all the other varied supernatural mythologies arose out of human culture

Are Jehovah's Witnesses not Christians??

Don't you think it's natural for our understanding of God to have changed as our knowledge has grown? God's big enough to have all our concepts in him.

God didn't send Jesus primarily to atone for our sins. He sent him to be God in human form.

JWs can't be Christians: they don't believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ.

Niminy -

No, I think a more parsimonious explanation of all the different versions of gods is that they are the creation of the human mind.

JWs say they are Christians (and Wikipedia says they are Christians....). How can the concept go god be so stretchy as to accommodate almost anything, but the concept of Christianity be so tightly defined as to be able to rule some people out for the wrong kind of belief?

How can you say one hand that gods purpose is so profound and beyond human understanding, and on the other hand know for sure what gods primary and secondary motivations were for sending Jesus?

I find the whole thing so slippery - on one hand if there are difficult questions you can always say its profound, mysterious, we are only humans and cannot know.....but when regions want to they can come up with some very specific ideas of what god is, what he wants people to do, and how he relates to human beings.

"our system of morality is fundamentally Christian"

Society evolves, at different paces in different places, there is an ebb and flow. Some societies are more enlightened than others.

Arguably countries with true communist manifestos are way more advanced than our hierarchical "christian" society.

But I hope your post wasn't really suggesting that Christianity has some kind of morally superior system than anyone else - because there's a shit load of people in the world who aren't christian with perfectly decent morals and in fact with no christian history either.

I 100% believe there is no god, I think the evidence of this is probably 99%. But I'm happy if someone wants to call it a believe or an opinion - I accept that everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I am equally entitled to consider how well informed I think their opinions are.

If there really was a god I am sure the world would be a very different place.

Things have moved on, but yes, murderofgoths, plenty of people do believe in fairies, but probably numerically far fewer than in the judaeoxtian god. And yes, if a majority of people believe something then it does seem better to debate with them openly than to try to silence them. However, as as far as I know, no such perverse belief as the one you cite is at all widespread. Again, minimal compared to the JX god.

Kewcumber, dropping in on this posting, but in one respect, and only one, Christianity is different from any other religion known to me. Most world religions have an idea of self-abnegation, up to and including pacifism, but christianity does have this especial charism of the despised and the outcast as especially good and blessed - compare the untouchables in Hinduism, or the Buddhist idea that those who suffer are being punished/learning from some past transgression. While many other religions advocate almsgiving, only xtians actually advocate embracing a leper as a loved brother. If anyone can correct me, I will accept it.

Not sure what you mean by 'true communism', but that idea comes arguably from the early church, as much as anything. Bernard Shaw said something like 'Christianity is a wonderful idea, which nobody has yet tried to practice.' The hierarchy you identify is not intrinsic to it, but came to it from the Roman Empire in which it grew up and the chaos which followed its collapse.

Sieglinde -

I think you are confusing not giving intellectual credence to beliefs without evidence with trying to trying to silence those who hold such beliefs.

One is a question of freedom of speech and association the other is about the social conventions around polite speech, where supernatural beliefs which have the stamp of approval of organised religion are considered out of bounds for the usual scepticism about extraordinary claims.

Of course people should be free to worship and talk about whatever they like (as long as its not hurting anyone).

But others should be free to say "that is silly" particularly if they bring supernatural beliefs into the public domain of policy, ethics, education, medicine etc....and expect other people to lend special weight to their revelatory "knowledge" (e.g. By reserving seats of political power for leaders of religious interest groups).

when it comes to debates about policy and ethics etc... everyone should have equal rights to hold and voice their views. No one should be silenced.

At present I think the whole education system around RE is designed to make sure that people have strong "internal censors" to silence public criticism of religion. comments on here telling people it's rude, adolescent, fundamentalist, disrespectful etc... to say that religion is a product of the human mind are part of the same silencing mechanism IMO.

God didn't send Jesus primarily to atone for our sins. He sent him to be God in human form.
To what purpose?

JWs can't be Christians
I think you misspelled "According to some people's definition of what a Christian is, JWs don't qualify although, of course, there is no consensus view of what counts as Christianity and what doesn't." HTH!

I do wonder why so many people have an imaginary friend that doesn't like them very much. Your imaginary friend won't talk to you, does wierd shit to you, hides away, makes demands - and yet you're still bleating at other people about how wonderful it is.

The reason non theists use the fairy/big foot analogy is that there is just as much evidence for those beliefs as there are for the main religions. Like it or not there is as much credibility to a belief in werewolves as there is in someone believing in Yahweh. Amount of followers is not evidence in favour of a religion, neither is personal testimony of divine revelation or a momentary glimmer of understanding as someone upthread put it.

I'd describe myself as an agnostic atheist, I can't be 100% sure that god(s) don't exist but based on the complete lack of evidence I don't believe they do exist. It's also not my responsibility to prove that god(s) doesn't exist, I can't prove a negative, the onus is on the theists making the positive claim that one does exist to prove it.

I'd also add that there are no less than ten religious books that claim they are the 'revealed' word of the 'one true god'; the Jewish Torah, the Christian Gospels, the Qur'an of Islam, Kitab-i-Aqdas of Bahá'u'lláh, the Hindu Vedas, the Avestas of Zarathustra, the Adi-Granth of the Sikhs, the Bhagavad-Gita of the Mahabarata, The Book of Mormon and the Urantia Book. So which one should I put my faith in? The most logical position for me to take is that they are all wrong and none of them are true.

'I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours' - Stephen Roberts.

Can't see where i do this, Hima.

As you know, I'm for disestablishment - I'm not C of E, and if I were to get feisty I would say they have the blood of my people on their hands, and that they also stole our buildings and wealth. I'm also against faith schools and against other manifestations of theocracy, including abortion laws which restrict access, though I myself think abortion is always wrong.

However, on abortion we now have a consensus, though it's not one I support morally. So I am applying my own precept here; I'm willing to discuss abortion with anyone, and try to persuade them to change their minds, but NOT to campaign for its illegality, a campaign which has wrought obvious injustice everywhere it has touched.

It's not because religion is 'organised' that it's out of bounds, Hima. (and ffs, it's not that organised ). It's because it commands a large slice of human history, opinion, loyalty and identity. Disagree all you like, but don't dismiss.

SG, why do you say 'imaginary friend' as though that's dreadful? I mean, what's wrong with imaginary friends? Have you seen Harvey, with James Stewart? See it! More seriously, though only a bit - part of the experience of god is the experience of absence, the dark night of the soul. Most people with religious beliefs have that experience, and perhaps you do too - a childlike sense of abandonment and desolation. Why do I say this? Because you write as if religion is about false happiness... Another argument adduced above suggests that people of religion are afraid of death - within norms, I'm really not, to the extent where I find it hard to sympathise with those who are.

Haven't caught up with all the thread but just like to point out that whatever Niminy thinks, JWs themselves state that they are Christians. Whatever your brand of Christianity, there's sure to be some other brand who'll say that you aren't a proper one. Remember the story of the men on the bridge ??

That joke's funny and true Grimma. :o

Imaginary friends are all fun and good but not good when your imaginary friend tells you what laws to make/overturn when you are in a position of power. That's the crux. Your imaginary friend should stay in your head and not get to decide what other people can and can't do.

I don't find the term 'imaginary friend' fits well as an analogy for deities because the former is the product of a child's own imagination whereas the latter is an idea which initially comes in from the outside (though everyone then customises their own version). When I lost faith, I didn't ever think in terms of having left behind an 'imaginary friend' - the word I ascribed to my formed self was 'deluded'.

Sieglinde, I agree with disestablishment and would like to see faith schools separated from state educational provision as in the US (the separation of church and state works very well imo). Ditto wrt abortion and my approach I have to say.

I also agree that when discussion of religion comes up there are lots of misapprehensions and mischaracterisations thrown about -- almost to the point of being straw men.

Yes, but I still think an alternative phrase is needed, though actually my childhood imaginary friends came from books, especially since I agree as said about the idea that god should not be a god who tells me what laws to make. he could be one who tells me what laws would fit with moral laws, but then I would need to persuade those who don't believe in him by reason.

Generally atheists here and elsewhere seem to see god as more dictatorial than I do.

So sieg how dictatorial is god? And how do you explain the fact that if you had a chart and asked all 'Christians' to plot how much they think God tells them what they should do, the spread would be very wide with some thinking he was chilled out and some saying he was all pure and hated sin?

If god isn't dictatorial why does he dictate so much in the OT? I assume that displays his character as much as anything in the NT? I ask but I already know what I would have said when I was in your shoes.

Apols if you're not referring to Yahweh in your reference to god