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?

Holo: do you mean 'Is it ok to use derogatory language to point out to an anti-semite that s/he is talking shit?' Of course it is.

SGB - Don't. Or society will break down

Cote - sorry to belabour this point, but...saying 'your views don't make sense to me / I don't understand your views' is one thing, and deliberately using language which you know will be heard by them as offensive and inflammatory, in order to belittle their viewpoints and therefore them, is quite another.

No SGB, I meant is it okay to be anti-Semitic, IYO? Jews are people of faith; does this therefore make them fair game for inflammatory language?

And most of all, who gets to decide when it's okay to use inflam. language? Say person A sees as aspect of herself as intrinsic to her identity. Person B sees that aspect as not intrinsic. Is person B within her rights to use inflammatory language of that aspect of Person A's identity? Or, Person C values an aspect of their identity. Person D does not value it, and thinks that he has good reasons not to. Is Person D within his rights to offend person C? (This feels like an ethics class...)

Holo - You are not hearing me.

"is it okay to be anti-Semitic"

In the racism sense - no, not OK. (You know this, I presume)

In the sense that one can criticise Israel for its policies and be called an anti-Semite - yes, perfectly OK.

Are you clear on this? I can repeat as many times as you need, take your time.

"No SGB, I meant is it okay to be anti-Semitic, IYO? Jews are people of faith; does this therefore make them fair game for inflammatory language?"

By the same token, would it be ok to call neo-Nazis racist fuckwits? I mean, surely infammatory/offensive is wrong no matter the belief it's aimed at right?

The point I'm making Cote is that race and faith, and various other aspects of identity, are not so easily separated. Yes, of course you can criticise Israel's politics without being anti-Semitic, just like you can criticise UK politics without being treasonous.

So, who gets to decide what's okay (out of persons A, B, C and D above), IYO?

Okay, what is an acceptable collective noun which atheists such as myself can use for all the different entities that other people believe in but atheists dont?

"saying 'your views don't make sense to me / I don't understand your views' is one thing"

Who is saying "I don't understand your views"?

We do understand your views. You believe in a deity for which there is no proof whatsoever. It's really not hard to understand.

Many people will find that ^ is not a rational position. You have no evidence. No proof. Nada. You believe in some story from 2,000 years ago, embellished over the centuries, about a deity, sin, heaven etc without a shred of evidence.

You can find it offensive all you like, but you will get told that your position is not a rational one, if you have no rational basis for it.

There is nothing you can do to stop people telling you what they think of your opinions, and dire warnings re breakdown of society is just making your views look even less rational.

Murder, yes, personally I don't think it's always wrong to avoid inflammatory language.

But if I were in a pub with a Neo-Nazi and had one shot at being able to try and make a difference to the way s/he sees the world, would I call him/her a fuckwit? No, because that'd shut down any hope of communicating with him/her, and therefore any hope of influencing him/her.

Holo - I know what you are trying to say, and that is also false. Racism isn't comparable to telling people "Your opinion has no basis in fact and I have no respect for it".

"But if I were in a pub with a Neo-Nazi and had one shot at being able to try and make a difference to the way s/he sees the world, would I call him/her a fuckwit? No, because that'd shut down any hope of communicating with him/her, and therefore any hope of influencing him/her."

Think of it like this then, you've tried reasoning, you've tried appealing to their better nature, they aren't the first neo-nazi you've had to deal with, they wont be the last, and a lot of them spend their time making decisions which affect your life which you have little recourse against, and they've categorically told you that you are wrong they are right, and in addition they are morally superior/better than you. Still want to refrain from calling them a racist fuckwit? Would you blame someone else in that situation from calling them a racist fuckwit?

I think that MrsHoarder's suggestion at 9.38 about returning the establisment religious schools to the community and giving the modern faith schools back to their religious organisations to be run as private schools is an excellent one.

Naming, the most obvious one that springs to mind is 'theists.' Or 'belief system' rather than 'imaginary friend.' These are pretty neutral terms IMO.

Cote, I don't find atheism offensive per se. I had the most wonderful, uplifting, affirming conversation with a dyed-in-the-wool atheist last week. I do find tedious, and puzzling, the deliberate and repeated use of words which are deliberately intended to belittle someone. As I said, I don't think that strong language is always wrong. I do believe pretty strongly though that all people should be respected on their own terms, in the identity which is important to them. Yes, I'd challenge identities which I believe to be morally wrong (eg neo-Nazism). But if I were trying to talk to someone whose views I found morally wrong, I'd try and do it without resorting to language which shuts down communication.

Go on, Cote, elaborate on / substantiate your assertion while I read the other posts...

Murder, maybe I'm restrained, but yes, I would avoid saying that. If push came to shove I'd go more down the route of saying 'this is how your way of seeing the world makes me feel...' and then go all guns blazing into how it actually feels to be the victim of racism. That'd be much more likely to have an impact.

What assertion?

Why don't you answer the question from two hours ago, which you said you would come to?

Namely:

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

I think this question will be the start to your understanding that people are not trying to be offensive or derogatory when they say "imaginary".

I have to work now. I hope that you will take this time to answer that simple question.

Thanks for that Holo.

"Murder, maybe I'm restrained, but yes, I would avoid saying that."

But would you judge someone else for saying it? Just because it isn't your method of dealing with it.

I don't understand the need to believe in one all powerful God. Why not believe in many Gods/Goddesses who specialise in certain areas

I'd prefer to pick and choose a variety of Gods/Goddesses and whichever aspects of a variety of religions appeal to me -> Hence my inability to state which religion I affiliate myself with.

I don't think religion should have any hold on politics or on education baring RE

"Why not believe in many Gods/Goddesses who specialise in certain areas "

Pick'n'mix religion

I'm going to answer the original OP, which asked where the certainty comes from that there is no god.

This is a good question, but as I have recently decided I am an atheist after over 30 years of trying to find God and invite him into my life, with no luck, my thoughts are still quite clear.

Basically, I am certain there is no god because:

1. other than the Bible there is no evidence at all for a god, and calling the Bible evidence is itself a bit of a stretch.

2. I have tried everything to 'find' god, and had no luck whatsoever.

Leading me to conclude that most (not all) people's belief in god actually stems from conditioning during childhood and the others (I'm thinking born againers here) have had some sort of experience that if you investigated it thoroughly would turn out to have an alternative explanation.

I feel like I've tried my best to believe, but at the end of the day it just feels wrong, and I apologise in advance to the believers, but it just seems a bit stupid and unneccessary.

Right, I'm now at the end of page 5. SolidGold, I love your answer to my question! Made me laugh out loud (in a good way!). I'm still not convinced 'imagiary friend' is the way to go, but I like your Terry Pratchett quite so much that I will let it go. I can't say I like the quote and carry on protesting really, can I?

And now I'm at the end of page 6 and I very much like this answer, from Holo:

'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.'

Holo, it does seem to be seen as generally 'OK' to mock christianity, at the moment. I'm sure lots of people could come up with lots of answers as to why that's OK and why christians have it coming to them, because of (...insert favourite dreadful thing done in the name of christianity here...)* but I agree with you here: it is not reasonable to do so. If I start mocking atheists, agnostics, materialists, humanists, anyone who doesn't share my religious beliefs, then I guess I'm fair game. I haven't though, so it'd be nicer if everyone else did the same. That said, if you really feel the need to mock it, then go right ahead. I still don't get why people feel that way (which, I think, take me back to my OP), but there we are.

*Very simplistic view of it all, I know.

Funnily enough, the other people it is apparently OK to mock and deride are Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm not a big fan myself, have looked into it and find the whole thing...very much not to my tastes, but I cringe when I hear people make derisory comments about the Witnesses who just called on them, etc. I heave a sigh of despair when I open the door to them too, but inwardly. They're doing something that they feel is important, they're not leading a crusade, or advocating FGM, or anything else that's anything more dreadful than interrupting my morning, so why all the hostility? Holo's right: it just isn't OK to be mean!

NamingofParts, that is a very good question. Someone (and I have now forgotten who) suggested, "Your opinion has no basis in fact and I have no respect for it," which I think is a reasonable reply to anyone sharing their faith with you. I also think it is reasonable to interrupt someone and tell them that you aren't interested and if they don't get the hint, then I would think it reasonable to use the imaginary friend argument, purely because they're clearly not going to respond to polite discourse and why should you listen to them if you don't want to? I don't think forcing one's views, political,
religious or otherwise, on anyone, is at all respectful. To that end, I don't think wading straight in with, 'imaginary friend' is that respectful either.

ilovetermtime, thank you for your reply. That makes a lot of sense to me and I do not think you owe me any kind of apology. It makes sense because (I know this may sound daft) I once tried to not believe. I was very pissed off with God at the time, and decided I'd be better off without the whole shebang. What did I then do, repeatedly? Remind God that I was ignoring him now. Maybe it was a lifetime of praying, old habits dying hard and all that, but repeatedly talking to a deity you have just decided cannot exist is...well, counter-productive. A very pissed-off me decided to go back on my word and begrudgingly accept the existence of God. My inability to disbelieve, therefore, persuades me that your inability to believe (I hope 'inability' doesn't sound offensive here - it wasn't meant to, but I don't think I picked a good word) makes sense to me. That was a while back. I'm OK with the whole God-thing now and feel better for the crisis of faith. Didn't feel much good at the time, mind!

Anyway, you may be right about the 'experience' and you may also be right about being able to explain that some other way. I remain happy in my faith and am very grateful for all those of you have answered my question (and brought up others for me to think about). I am feeling slightly guilty that I haven't answered Cote's question, although I don't think that one was aimed at me, so maybe that's OK after all!

And behold - now I have shared something of my faith and probably provoked a load of these faces: . Sorry, folks. That's not what I asked the original question for. It was just in explanation of how ilove's stance made so much sense to me.