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?

'drinking from THEM.' :(

THe Egyptians used to kill off the slaves when the master died for religious reasons: the slaves were to follow the master into the next world. Some Christians think it's a good thing for women to die in childbirth because they'll go to heaven - there certainly has been a strand of Christian belief to the effect that any form of pain releif in labour was a sin, because women were meant to suffer in childbirth because of the Sin Of Eve.

... I was actually thinking of Greenday when I was writing that . Our Xmas outing this year is to see American Idiot - I hope it will be transcendent

And conversely, the non-theistic Buddha said that you shouldn't trade living beings and laid down guideliness for humane treatment of servants (who may or may not have been slaves). It doesn't require a 'loving god' to know that owning and killing people is wrong.

Christians (eg Wilberforce) were prime movers in getting the slave trade outlawed in Britain; they were opposed by, among others, the Lords Spiritual of their time.

On the pain relief issue, it was fortunate that the possibility of analgesia during childbirth coincided with a fertile, female monarch!

sieg you mention the ropey language of the NT and how that somehow attests to the truth of it. So following that logic I could sit and write an account of how I was abducted by aliens on my way to Asda yesterday morning. And because I have included some everyday information about shops and so on amongst the wild claims, and that it's obviously not been written by a trained writer, that that is somehow evidence to back up my claim??

It is fair to say that the illegalisation of Slavery came from the Christian abolitionist movement, but again this seems to be further evidence of the bible and god meaning only what you want it to believe, rather than it having an independent meaning and reality. Biblical references were used by the abolitionists to call for the end to the slave trade, but quite often the same passages of text (even from the New Testament) were used to justify its continuance.

Christianity is also not the only religion that calls for decent treatment of slaves: the Torah also forbids the killing of slaves and even some branches of Islam (particularly Sunni and more so Sufi) advocate treating slaves as equal human beings (apart from those tricky things such as payment for work and freedom of course).

Christianity has also been used to justify all sorts of atrocities, such as some of the most brutal colonial practices in Africa, and the snatching of Aboriginal children from their families in Australia. It is also frequently used by people who traffic women for sexual exploitation from Africa to Europe in the present day.

Again, to me, it is further evidence that the idea of god, and how god wants you to behave, is wholly subjective dependent on the 'believer's' personal ethics, rather than there being any evidence at all for an independent reality of god.

Snorbs, yes, every individual is unique and everyone's take on what constitutes morality is unique. That is why an organised religion (my own experience is with the RC church) sets forth precepts about how to live, or dogma, or some organised system of belief.

Thistledew, that doesn't mean the religion should be scrapped. It means that the people doing wrong need to stop.

There are laws about driving and parking that are routinely flouted (a lot of the time by people who are perfectly sincere in their belief that they have some good reason to ignore them) but that doesn't mean the whole edifice is rotten.

I don't necessarily think that religions need to be scrapped. I just think that society and civilisation would move forward significantly if it was universally accepted that everyone has a complete freedom of choice in what they believe in, and that if you (generic you) believe that gays shouldn't marry, abortions should be outlawed, other people will be subject to eternal torment for not performing certain rituals etc that this is your belief and is not dictated to you by any outside force or entity.

I am sure that there will still be people who choose to believe negative things about their fellow human beings, and who choose to try to control them, but I also like to think that it would make people examine their beliefs a bit more honestly, and take ownership for the harmful bits, rather than just being able to say "It's what I have to believe".

If following a religion helps you be a better, kinder, more beneficial person, then by all means knock yourself out and believe what you like. Just don't assume a justification for the not so nice bits.

Don't assume that because you believe there are bits that are not so nice that those bits are not nice.

every individual is unique and everyone's take on what constitutes morality is unique. That is why an organised religion (my own experience is with the RC church) sets forth precepts about how to live, or dogma, or some organised system of belief.

or then again, you can have a good legal system. It doesn't require anything supernatural.

I'm not sure I follow you there math. My point is that beliefs and even morality to some extent is subjective, rather than having an objective truth. However, my own ethical code tells me that, for example, believing that other people are going to be subject to eternal torment because they do not believe the same as I do and do not carry out the same rituals that I do is 'not nice'. I believe that such a view would lead me to devalue the other person's opinions and to view myself as being in a preferential situation to them. Taking away the justification of "I believe this because my imaginary friend tells me it is the right thing to believe" would make it harder for people to justify holding such beliefs.

Grimma, A legal system usually has some system of morality underpinning it, or at least a hierarchy of values. The OT was such a legal system (in part).

Thistledew, yet you seem to look down your nose at people who have what is in your view a skewed morality system, or a system of morality that comes from the religious authority they subscribe to -- you yourself actually seem to devalue other people's opinions and even to view your personal value system as being preferential. You seem to expect others to come up with some sort of justification for the values they hold and the views they hold beyond their 'imaginary friend' (a condescending term) 'dictating' them.

Do you expect others to justify themselves to you?

Yes, I do expect justification when I have people telling me that I am leading my life wrong because I don't hold certain beliefs and that I will be in eternal torment because I don't perform certain rituals. I expect justification when those beliefs that people hold mean that women are not allowed abortions, and that my gay friend cannot marry in the church he attends. I expect justification when I am told that my children must perform a daily ritual to a deity that I have no belief in.

I do think it is preferential to have a value system that you can defend logically and that you have reached through your own reasoning, not because you believe that someone or something is telling you to believe it. I will listen to your views if they conflict with mine, even if you cannot explain the logic behind them, but I will be quick to dismiss them if I cannot see that they are based on logic and reason. And I will resent you if you try to tell me how I should live my life if your only reasoning is "because it says so in this book".

It is also a fallacy to say that a legal system not based on a religious belief is not based on a moral code. Of course most (all?) legal systems are. It is simply not necessary to have a deity imposing the moral code in order to follow one.

SG, I don't think even the most rabid RC would see a (pregnant) woman as a slave to be slaughtered. :( I also doubt that many would say that her life doesn't matter because she is going to heaven anyway. I think this is a case of making yourself a big bogey in order to jump on it.

While agreeing that most religions desiderate the fair treatment of slaves, xtians were the first to argue against them tout court, and - this is the key thing - they convinced virtually all other xtians who didn't have an immediate monetary interest in not being convinced. By contrast, Islam serenely kept thousands of slaves in the indisputably great years of the Abbasid Caliphate. Not sure what happened after its collapse - must find out, but it was in other respects a dazzlingly enlightened regime of classical learning and science.

While I agree that Xtians perpetrated some terrible atrocities in all colonial spheres, and in fact I can think of much more obvious examples of religious horrors than those you cite, in what way did the people you cite use xtian teachings to justify them? I grew up in oz myself and have v. strong views on the stolen generation, but it was mostly justified by entirely secular arguments about human evolution and the supposed elimination of a people who could not 'adapt' or 'become civilized' and were thus a waste product; in fact it's because of this that I dislike Dawkins so much, though of course it's not his fault personally any more than it's mine personally that the Rc chruch does and is some terrible things. You can see these ideas at work in history books of the era, I'm afraid.

Grimma, I fear history doesn't bear out your confidence about a good legal system. Far from it. Think: you are an Austrian and it is Silvester 1938, New Year's eve, and you are happy and you are a citizen of three generations' standing whose father fought in the Great War in Austrian uniform. You are, let's say, a doictor, and your son is a lawyer. Your daughter too is at university. Only you are jewish, and in a few short months you will lose every single one of your rights and every single one of the laws that protect you will be smashed, and all your property will be confiscated. Laws are worth nothing if people don't uphold the law of love.

Thistledew, I'm in some sympathy with your views on hellfire, but I would like to point out that it doesn't occupy a lot of space in the NT. I never think about it much, and most of my religion don't either. I would never presume to say that you or anybody else is going there because you don't perform certain rituals - how absurd! Nor can there be IMO ANY justification in religion for being unkind or intolerant or aggressive.

But careful, because that's a pretty dogmatic statement.. but is that dogma all right? To me it is. Love is the law.

Finally, Hima - I always knew we were akin! Yes, yes, YES Green Day. I love them. Especially American Idiot. I have tickets for their 2013 tour - yes, already. Hope Billy Joe is back on his feet by then. From which you will gather that I'm not one to be put off by vehement antixtian polemic.

Grimma, A legal system usually has some system of morality underpinning it, or at least a hierarchy of values

To be sure. That doesn't require a deity. Its also something which can and is amended as society evolves. Religions usually seem to be a few steps behind.

You dislike Richard Dawkins because of the actions of the Australian government decades ago? Eh?

Thistledew -- have people told you that a lot or is this an imaginary enemy you are talking about here?

A gay person who attends a church that frowns on gay marriage is doing a massive amount of cognitive dissonance surely? I'm not trying to be flippant here -- but what on earth is a gay person getting out of a church that sees things that way?

'It is also a fallacy to say that a legal system not based on a religious belief is not based on a moral code.'
Who said that? If you are trying to quote me then you need to reread what I posted.

Grimma -- Legal systems are rarely amended in their entirety/scrapped. Details are tweaked but the fundamentals generally remain the same.

Thistledew, Sieglinde's point about secular ideas giving rise to some egregious injustices and horrors of history is one you should consider in light of your espousal of logic.

HH, because of his assumption that Darwinism is an efficacious moral discourse; I've known it egregiously misused, that's all. I don't think dislike is quite the right word; perhaps it's more accurate to say it's a way I find his writings too, let's say, cocksure. I'm perfectly willing to admit that the RC church has perpetrated its share of horrors, and I'm just keen for others to agree that the same may be said for Darwinism and also for some other militant secular codes.

Grimma, and mathanxiety, my point was that whole legal systems have vanished overnight. They aren't guarantees of anything.

Grimma -- Legal systems are rarely amended in their entirety/scrapped. Details are tweaked but the fundamentals generally remain the same.

That's because there are a lot of basic ethical principles which don't change. They aren't religion-specific.

Seig... exactly why I specified a good legal system.

'Darwinism' isn't a code of any sort. That some people misinterpreted the theory of evolution by natural selection to arrive at eugenics is a tragedy of the past, don't see how it relates to practitioners of current evolutionary biology who thoroughly repudiate it. (As one does, I wandered off to look at eugenics in the USA - astonishing what sort of institutions supported it in the early 20th C. )

So you'd prefer it if, every few sentences, he sad something like 'well what do I know, I've probably got it all wrong' or something?

Holo your first post is really thought provoking.

I would be interested to understand how someone can simultaneously claim they don't "believe in anything they can't experience", but yet believe in the concept of empiricism. Isn't that a paradox?

Trouble begins when people whose justification for stopping such things as gay couples marrying and women having access to contraception and abortion is that their imaginary friend wouldn't like it then insist that their delusions take priority over the views, wishes and human rights of those without imaginary friends. Sure, a gay man attending a church that hates gay people must suffer a lot of cognitive dissonance that could be fixed, not just by binning the superstition wholesale but by hunting up a branch of it that is not homophobic. There are plenty of gay Christian movements, plenty of gay vicars, and TBH a selective reading of the new testament could give you a reasonable amount of poetic/mythological 'evidence' that Jesus was a puddle-jumper.