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?

And the accusation that atheists are intellectually impoverished explains why atheists are so defensive.

I don't think I'm intellectually impoverished. I see the beauty of mathematics, love literature and poetry, and my husband and son are the centre of my world. I think that as human beings we have a duty to each other to minimise suffering in the world and keep the light of sentience alive.

As a child I did believe in a loving God, and as a troubled teenager I clung to that belief even when my faith was worn away. It is only as an adult that I have decided that there is no evidence of that God and that I shouldn't live my life for him.

This doesn't make me anti-religion. At DH's request we married in a church as it was far more important for him to make his vows in a church than it was for me to not do so. I just don't think that the church should try to influence legislation when no harm is to be done if the law passes (thinking about gay marriage and abortion in particular, but don't want to debate the rights and wrongs of them here).

I used the Father Christmas analogy because most people can remember losing their belief in Father Christmas, whereas the "invisible pink unicorn" type comparison no-one truly believes in.

I actually don't have an objection to DS learning about Christianity in school in principle, its just that I get the impression that schools are pushed for time and resources as it is. The passing on of untruths seems to me to be something that could easily be cut from the curriculum without damaging the education of our children. There is nothing to stop those who do believe from taking their children to Sunday school. After all, pre universal education it would only have been on a Sunday that anyone received religious instruction.

• where anyone is clearly the lay man. Not clergy etc.

I have never believed in God. I sat in religious studies in my primary school aged 5 and thought to myself "what a load of nonsense" and couldn't understand how anyone could believe what was being said.

As an adult I tend to believe that religions believing in an external god have survived because they give society the opportunity to control the individual. I prefer the Buddhist idea of "Buddha nature" where we all have the internal resources within ourselves to live in a proper way, but need to access them.

I prefer to see all religion kept out of schools.

Superstition and the superstitious deserve and need to have the piss taken out of them when they insist that their drivel should be 'respected' by people to whom it is of no interest. You're not asked to 'respect' another person's choice of music, or wallpaper, or which football team to support, especially if you have no interest in sport, art or home decor. Yet there's this whole institutionalized business of having to sit by and listen politely when people cack on about their imaginary friends.

Well said SolidGold.

May I flip the question around and ask it back to the religious community on MN.

What would you prefer (you can only choose one or the other):

1. People making childish digs about your religious choice, but doing you no real charm, or

2. A society where a religion that you don't agree with (for ethical and philosophical reasons), has unfair and unjustified privilege within society and where your children are brainwashed with a religion you don't believe in or agree with.

I have to put up with number 2, and it is crappy. I think religious people have the better end of the stick!

I'm only page 2 so far (working my way through) but thank you all so much for replying! Holofernes and Colditz, I think you btoh make really excellent thought-provoking points. Colditz, your explanation of proof/belief are very interesting and are really helping me to understanmd what atheism is about. makes a lot more sense to me now.

SolidGold, your thoughts, as ever, are very interesting and I appreciate you contributing. I think describing a deity as 'an imaginary friend,' is the kind of thing I'm talking about and that does sound a bit offensive. I'm not personally offended, but I read that and think, 'Why would you say that to anyone? I wouldn't deride you for your beliefs/evidence-based arguments - I'd want to listen to them, as here, and think about them and discuss them.' However you look at it, I think, 'imaginary friend' in this context, sounds derisive.

Right, off to read a few more pages...

Funny (and very leading) question Techno, but I'll bite...

If I had to choose either, I'd go for option 2. I've travelled a lot and spent reasonably long periods of time in countries in which Christianity is a minority religion. I loved those places, and felt no less Christian because there were temples everywhere instead of churches. In fact in some ways it's easier to be Christian in those places because you don't have all the cultural baggage that we do in the UK. My Christianity was always respected (sorry SGB) and I had no problems being me. As for schools, yes, I've talked to Christian teens in a Muslim country about how to be Christian in an Islamic school. It's not necessarily a bad thing IMHO, it means that bring a Christian really has to mean something. So in all honesty, I'm pretty sure that I could live in a country with a state / dominant religion other than Christianity, and be happy there. There'd have to be good food, though! ;)

Whereas the wind-ups (option 1) are a bit tedious, and often a dead end alley as far as real conversation and exploration are concerned.

Funny (and very leading) question Techno, but I'll bite...

If I had to choose either, I'd go for option 2. I've travelled a lot and spent reasonably long periods of time in countries in which Christianity is a minority religion. I loved those places, and felt no less Christian because there were temples everywhere instead of churches. In fact in some ways it's easier to be Christian in those places because you don't have all the cultural baggage that we do in the UK. My Christianity was always respected (sorry SGB) and I had no problems being me. As for schools, yes, I've talked to Christian teens in a Muslim country about how to be Christian in an Islamic school. It's not necessarily a bad thing IMHO, it means that bring a Christian really has to mean something. So in all honesty, I'm pretty sure that I could live in a country with a state / dominant religion other than Christianity, and be happy there. There'd have to be good food, though! ;)

Whereas the wind-ups (option 1) are a bit tedious, and often a dead end alley as far as real conversation and exploration are concerned.

Gah, double posted - sorry!

Right, I've got as far as page three now. NicholasTeakozy (great name, btw!), regariding your argument:

When asked if I believe in God I always ask "which one?" Invariably the answer is either Christ, in which case I point out that Christ isn't a god, merely a prophet of Jehovah, or Allah. In both cases I point out that as they only believe in one of the 4000 or so gods they're only one god away from atheism.

Christians see Jesus as God, so the whole 'prophet of Jehovah' argument will not wash with them. Fair enough if others see him as a prophet. I'm just saying christians wouldn't.

Colditz, I like the 'would you spend those two hours in the bath instead?' idea. I think if you said, 'There is no God, so take a bath instead,' I'd still go to church, beccause I'd think, 'Well that's your opinion and I want to go to church.' If you presented me with evidence that there absolutely is no God then I would take the bath, because I'd not want to waste any more time in the pursuit of what had turned out to be no more than a fantasy (what SG calls imginary friends) but I don't see how you could absolutely disprove God. I do understand the evidence on which your atheism is based and I think you explain it really well. I just don't think, still, that you can disprove the existence of God, any more than I can prove it. Consequently I am still going to church, even though the bath sounds really appealing!

BigMouth, those song lyrics are beautiful.

Whether you can disprove "God" depends on what you mean by God. If someone claims "God exists" and means "A superpowerful being called God created the universe, but doesn't interfere with they way it runs now" then I'd say there's not much evidence one way or the other - also, while interesting, it doesn't make much difference to humans whether this version of god exists or not.

If someone claims "God exists and is all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing, will answer prayers and is accurately described by the texts of the bible", I'd say there is strong evidence against this claim. Firstly the god described in the bible commits many evil acts, such as inciting his followers to commit murder and rape. Secondly, the state of the world, with innocent children suffering and dying, is strong evidence against the existence of an all-powerful, all-loving god.

I am now on page 5 and, Hecate, I couldn't agree more! I hope I never sneer at another's beliefs, nor shove my religion down other people's throats. I find that offensive. I know I started this thread, but that was because I wanted to hear other people's views, rather than have my own confirmed. I wanted to better understand something I find confusing (and I think and hope I now do).

sassh, your comment has just made me realise that some of my own arguments are flawed here. You are right: it must be possible to be 100% sure that there is no God or you couldn't be an atheist. Good point! I'm still not convinced that anyone can 100% prove that, but I do see that you can be 100% sure about it. I can't 100% prove that there is and I'm not 100% sure that there is (I'm open to the idea that I may be wrong) but I find that my life with faith makes far more sense to me than my life without.

Bandersnatchcummerbund (top name!), how right you are: 'I know few people who don't believe that if only others saw the world as they did, that world would be a better place.'

Solid Gold, your example about women going out at night was a really powerful one, as it is a set of religious beliefs (or a particular interpretation of those beliefs) which led to just that situation. I also agree with you (and many others) about followers of religion using their god to justify appalling mistreatment of other human beings. In that case I don't find myself wanting to turn away from the god, but I do find myself wanting to have nothing to do with those of his followers who act in that way. The track record is not good.

Hmm...I meant, 'I am now on page 4.' Sorry. However, I am now on page 5.

Technodad, I would take option 1. That's how I feel things are. I am open to the idea, though, that I don't see the, 'unfair and unjustified privilege within society,' because I am part of it, by virtue of sharing the same faith.

My children don't go to a religious school. I am glad of that. I do feel they get all the education they need, regarding my faith, at home and at church. At their school the collective worship is what I think the LEA calls 'broadly christian,' in that they sing some songs with the word, 'Jesus,' in them, none with the word, 'Mohammed,' in them and a lot more that are open to interpretation. I am sure that my children think those songs are about their god, just as I am sure that the children of other faiths think they are singing about their god. Their religious education in their school is, I think, a tiny bit marvellous. This term they've all been learning about Judaism and Christianity. In the Summer term they learned about Islam. They found it really interesting and my son went on a trip to a mosque with his class. That's where religious education in schools is good: where it offers the children a chance to find out about the beliefs of others and to see where and how they worship.

SolidGold, I don't think you have to respect a person's beliefs and I think it is perfectly OK to listen and say, 'I'm sorry, but I disagree. I think your god is no more than an imaginary friend.' That's your opinion, which you are entitled to hold and entitled to express. I think, though, that you can express those views while remaining respectful of the person who holds them. To use your wallpaper analogy, if I went round someone's house and thought their wallpaper was vile I wouldn't say, 'You must have terrible taste - that wallpaper is hideous!' that would be hurtful. In the same way, why not disagree with someone about their religious beliefs without using derogatory language? That I don't get. I do, however, think that you can be more forthright about religion than you can about wallpaper. Most people with vile wallpaper aren't on a mission to make you paper your walls in the same way. Many people with religious beliefs are hoping to persuade you to believe the same things as them. A more forthright approach is therefore entirely acceptable. Even so, there are limits. If I disparaged your worldview in the same way you seem to disparage the worldview of religious people, I'd think myself to be very rude. That said, I like to read your posts, but as I said earlier, I don't feel personally offended, even if I do think, 'My word, SGB comes over as rude and strident!'

Holofernes: I don't think you understood Technodad's point about the privileging of one superstition over others. You mentioned, quite a way upthread, that you have chosen to send your DC to a school where they will be taught Christianity along with their maths and history and PE. While that's fair enough and a choice that should be open to you, people who are not interested in Christian mythology and do not consider it 'true' or remotely relevant to their lives often do not have the same choice; their kids get this crap peddled to them as true and important at school because there are no other schools available. There are, in fact, plenty of Christians who disagree with 'compulsory Christianity' in schools, it's not just us meddling rational types who think that it's a parent's job to teach DC about the parents' worldview when it comes to picking an imaginary friend.

GeorgianMum: When it comes to dealing with individuals in general conversation, I don't generally grab them by the lapels and shout 'There are no gods, buckethead, get over it!' I do have friends who believe in some god or other (different friends, different imaginary friends) - we mostly agree to differ on the subject. However, any new acquaintance who starts banging on about his/her beliefs when I haven't asked for the information might find him/herself getting a more robust discussion than s/he expected. However, on an internet forum in a general discussion, I don't think it's necessary to fanny about pretending to take daft arguments ("My imaginary friend IS real! I KNOW it is. It's Real because *I said so!") seriously.

And 'imaginary friend' is a useful catch-all term that makes it unnecessary to go through all the Yahweh Zeus Rama Jehovah Thor Allah Baron Samedi Cthuhlu specific names and all the rest of the wide variety of imaginary friends different people go in for.

SGB, I do understand Techno's question. Think about the group of Christian teens I spent time with, who attend an Islamic school. In their country, Islam is privileged. My point is that they can still be as Christian in an Islamic state as they could in a supposedly Christian one. IMO countries aren't 'Christian' anyway, people are. And yes, i send my dc to a church school. IMO I'm glad that Church schools are on offer, but their being Christian doesn't depend on that, or necessitate it. (

Holo: My concern with the teens you describe is that it sounds as though they are 'free' to obey a mildly different set of homophobic, misogynistic, restrictive superstitions. I'd be more convinced of the harmlessness of allowing superstition a privileged status (no matter which brand of superstition it is) if you could describe teens who were free to openly reject any imaginary friends whatsoever, eat and drink what they like and have the kind of sex lives they choose.

SGB, it would be possible for you to make the points you make without being so inflammatory. 'Invidible friend' may be a useful catch all term to you, but it is inflammatory. You know that, otherwise you wouldn't use it. There are lots of other useful, catch all terms to describe groups of people that are deeply offensive and inflammatory .

Anyway, cutting through the polemic, I take it that what you are trying to say is that you are unhappy about the number of church schools in your local area. Is that right? If so, do something about it. Find out why there are so many church schools, find other patents who feel the same and start exploring how things could be different; talk to to your MP, stand as a local councillor even.

I have just read an article in the Irish examiner about a woman giving a talk at Mass that her sn chid was a 'punishment from God' - so 'invisible friend' is fine with me, and pretty mild actually.

I think it was Terry Pratchett who said, the freedom to offend is the only freedom worth a damn as it is the one on which all others are based.

Holo the point is that there are no secular schools in England. If a school is not a faith school it still had to have a daily broadly Christian act of worship. This is the privilege christianity hold in the English education system.

• I an aware education is a devolved matter and am not aware of the rules for Scotland/Wales/NI.

Plus there are many more rural areas where the only local schools are CoE and there is frankly bugger all that anyone can do at a local level about it, and the government has been encouraging the establishment of more faith schools (presumably keen on the donations from such groups, as it's certainly not because there is any evidence that people are getting more religious give that church attendance continues to slide).

Personally I don't think that religion has any place near schools at all, but my mother thinks it is appalling that where we live now the schools are strictly secular and so my children have virtually no religious knowledge at all.

Sleek, okay, so on the basis of your logic, the man with whom I had a conversation last week was right. He said 'women are rubbish leaders; just look at Margaret Thatcher.' (I went on to say, ah yes, let's look at George W. Bush, shall we?) If you decide that one unhelpful woman makes it okay to discount women altogether, or to use offensive, inflammatory language against womankind, I have a major problem with that. If you go on holiday and have an unfortunate experience with one person, and come back muttering racist and xenophobic remarks about 'bloody foreigners', I have a major issue with that. As for whether it's defensible to be inflammatory, ever...well, that's a valid question. But if you are trying to talk to someone, surely it's counter-productive to constantly belittle and offend them? Why would a sensible person do that? Seriously, what are the reasons?

So which of you who have posted have spoken to your MP about the provision of schools in your local area?

Holo - I think it is a bit disengenuous to suggest that local councillors and MPs are able to replace discriminatory schools with non discriminatory ones on a local basis if only people would ask them. The cases I've heard about e.g. Where a community had two schools but only enough pupils for one, the church school takes priority to stay open, even if more local people would like a community school.

There are church schools because of historical religious privilidge, and the church, like any interest group defends its own interests.

I do think people should take action - at a national level, and if there is a new religious Academy proposed in their area, but telling people to become local councillors because they will be able to influence the role of religion in schools is telling them to waste their time.

Him, I didn't say that people should try to replace local church schools with humanist ones, I said that they should find out why there are so many church schools, and what steps would need to be taken. They might well find that getting involved in national education policy is the way forward.

Just as an aside, how do you feel about groundroots involvement with local politics as a way of making a difference in the world? Do you feel it's a waste of time generally, or just with regard to certain issues? (not a leading question, genuinely interested in how people view local politics).