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?

[Himalaya]

But we know why there are so many church schools. It is an accident of history which the churches have defended vigorously because it is useful to get bums on seats and maintain their privilidged place in public life.

[HolofernesesHead]

How much serious reading have you done on the history of church schools, Him?

And are you saying that that's just the way things are and we have to accept it?

[MrsHoarder]

And in the 19th century the local community would give the money to the church to start a school because the vicar would be the only literate person in the community and book learning was considered to be something that came from the church.

My (C of E) village school was established in 1824 funded by the local "lord" for the village. That he gave the money via the church isn't really relevant, the money was given to the person best suited to establish a school in that village. 20th century schools belonging to other faiths are more complex, but they mostly follow from the accident of history that meant that C of E schools are a large part of our education system.

These schools should be returned to the whole of the community that paid for them originally. Where they are historic C of E then they should become community schools, 20th century faith schools should be offered back to the churches that "own" them. If they choose to try and run a private school that's their call, otherwise they could give them to the LA to run as a school for the community.

Of course the risk of loosing all our school places as faiths place less emphasis on charity and helping others than on retaining privileged education for their own children means this will never be done.

[Himalaya]

No I'm saying that telling people to become a local councillor because that will give them the power to challenge the undue privilidge of religious institutions in state education is sending them on a wild goose chase.

... It implies that the reason why 1/3 of primary schools have equal opportunities policies that would be illegal in any other public service is because not enough people are becoming councillors or writing to their MPs about their local schools. Which is just not true. It is embedded in national laws.

It's like a reverse situation to you internally translating SGB's language into something more polite.

It's a very polite way of saying "shut up and stop moaning"

[HolofernesesHead]

Him, do you mean that you think I'm telling you to shut up and stop moaning? If that's your impression, you've misheard. I'm arguing that you should be doing more to change things, if you feel really passionately.

Tbh from my perspective, money is just one factor that led to the rise of church schools. Yes, an important one. But the passion / dedication to provide church schools was an equally important factor, and tbh, if you feel really, really strongly that secular schools should be available, then why not do something about it, even if you have to recognise that it might take generations to get to where you want to be? And that leads on to the wider question; if you want to make a difference in the world, why not get involved with local issues? If you feel passionately about schools, you're going to be the type of person who cares passionately about other issues and could potentially do a lot for your community. How is that a wild goose chase?

From my POV, I like church schools, and I think that they do a great deal of good, but I don't believe that they should be foisted upon people.

[Bluegrass]

" if you feel really, really strongly that secular schools should be available, then why not do something about it"

Like challenging belief in religion as something better suited to the mythologies of a more credulous past and arguing the point on high traffic websites? Sounds like she is already doing something about it (but you're right, it will probably take generations before Yahweh goes the way of Zeus!

[HolofernesesHead]

Point taken, Bluegrass. Talking about it is doing something about it.

[SolidGoldYESBROKEMYSPACEBAR]

Referring to people's imaginary friends is simply a clear way of pointing out to them that others do not agree with them and that their delusions deserve no more respect or privilege than any other opinion.

[HolofernesesHead]

Oh SGB, if only this approach were taken in all areas of life. If only it were okay to say 'well, 'Johnny Foreigner' is a clear way of saying that others dislike non-UK citizens and that they deserve no respect in their own right'. Or to say 'well, 'fine little filly' is a clear way of saying that others appraise women as objects and that they deserve no respect in their own right...' The list goes on. You might be able to justify your opinions, but so can BNP members and outright sexists, and people who believe in eugenics, and so on, and so on. Would you defend their right to use words in a clear way to point out to women / non-whites / people with SN / anyone in fact, that some people disagree with them and have no respect for them in their own right? This is a real question, and it's based on your logic, with which I strongly disagree.

Is it okay, to use inflammatory, disrespectful words to describe people, just to make it obvious that you disagree with them or dislike them? I don't think it is. Imagine what the world would be like if everyone did this all the time. Imagine what it'd be like for the vulnerable, the marginalised. I don't want to live in a world like that, and I'd fight tooth and nail for my dc not to have to.

[CoteDAzur]

What is the difference between an imaginary friend and one for whose existence you have no proof whatsoever?

[CoteDAzur]

You should read Carl Sagan's Demon-Haunted World. Especially the part about the dragon in his garage:

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage" Suppose I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists?

[HolofernesesHead]

Cote, that's a valid question. I'm not going to answer it now. For the moment, the question is 'is it okay to use inflammatory and derogatory language with the intention of making sure that your disrespect for another human being is clear?' If so, where do we draw the line so that society doesn't break down?

[CoteDAzur]

Of course you won't answer it because you can't.

[HolofernesesHead]

I'll come back to the dragon story later. For now, I'm interested in how we talk to each other as humans.

[HolofernesesHead]

Cote, what do you think about my question?

[CoteDAzur]

"'is it okay to use inflammatory and derogatory language with the intention of making sure that your disrespect for another human being is clear?'

Without any more clarification, I would have to answer that with a general "Yes". Sometimes, people feel the need to be clear about such things and that is not an entirely bad thing.

"If so, where do we draw the line so that society doesn't break down?"

LOL. Breakdown of society, no less. Aren't you being a bit melodramatic?

[CoteDAzur]

As humans, we talk to each other in various ways. Sometimes, rational discourse is possible, other times, it's not. In the latter case, it is very frustrating when the other person will not (cannot?) acknowledge that their position makes little to no sense, and is based on no evidence whatsoever.

As you say, we are human, and it is not always possible to conceal such frustration with a fellow human who should be perfectly capable of logical thought & reasoning. Sometimes, contempt is voiced.

And society does not break down. No, really.

[HolofernesesHead]

Breakdown of society melodramatic. Maybe. Think about what it is that keeps, or makes, a community cohere though.

So, if it's okay to be inflammatory and derogatory in order to express disrespect, where do we draw the line? I.e. at what point is it not okay? Wrt race? Gender? Sexuality? Political affiliation? Ability? Accent? Taste in music? Names of DC? Town of birth? Class? How we do we decide what's 'fair game' and the point at which inflammatory and derogatory language becomes indefensible? (think of that comedian whose name I can't remember who made jokes about people with SN...is that okay?)

[SolidGoldYESBROKEMYSPACEBAR]

It's perfectly OK to use derogatory language about people's opinions. This is not the same as using negative language about the characteristics over which they have no control, such as ethnicity, gender, size, SN etc.

Would you insist that, in discussing immigration with a racist, you refer to their views as 'patriotism' rather than 'bigotry' to avoid trampling their delicate feelings?
'Imaginary friend' is accurate shorthand. The fact that using it indicates that the user disagrees with the person waving his/her imaginary friend around is something the imaginary-friend waver just has to suck up.
Or, of course, provide some kind of evidence that the imaginary friend is not imaginary at all.

[CoteDAzur]

You are taking PC to the extreme. If you feel contempt for someone's opinions, it's OK to say this.

If you bang on about a belief for which you have no evidence whatsoever, it is likely that once in a while someone will point out to you that this does not inspire a whole load of respect. Especially if you go on about how rational people who expect proof to believe something have an "impoverished way of thinking".

[CoteDAzur]

Exactly. You aren't happy with the word "imaginary", but also can't don't want to answer the question "What is the difference between an imaginary friend and one for whose existence there is no proof whatsoever?"

This sounds like an internal conflict that you need to solve within yourself.

And no, society won't break down if you can't. Not so sure about your psychology, though. It's always better to work these things out rather than let them fester

[HolofernesesHead]

What about anti-Semitism, SGB? That (usually) covers ethnicity and belief. Is that okay? No, I thought not.

Anyway, you're predicating your answer on a understanding of religion that I don't think is altogether true (i.e. that it's not intrinsic to the person's identity). I'd change my nationality sooner than my faith, personally.

But to the question I asked earlier: if you want to talk to someone, why would you want to do so in language that constantly belittles and offends them? What is gained?

[CoteDAzur]

What about anti-Semitism? These days, it is a blanket term that includes people who criticise Israel for bombing Palestinian civilians.

[HolofernesesHead]

You've never met any neo-Nazis, then? Believe me, anti-Semitism exists (and not just in politically extreme circles). I've heard some cracking examples recently, in leafy UK suburbia.

[CoteDAzur]

If you are talking about neo-Nazis' hatred of Jews (not sure why? [puzzled]), of course that is not right. As SGB explained, blind hatred of a group of people due to their skin color, ethnicity etc is not to be tolerated (and it's not) but this has nothing to do with telling people that their opinion is not rational and has no factual basis, which is perfectly fine.

In other words, you can't make people stop telling you that your views don't make sense. Sorry but you'll have to deal with hearing it, or consider believing in things you have evidence for.