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?

I find it strange we're not supposed to criticise religion, and in his speech to Digital Biota Douglas Adams said:-

"Now, the invention of the scientific method and science is, I'm sure we'll all agree, the most powerful intellectual idea, the most powerful framework for thinking and investigating and understanding and challenging the world around us that there is, and that it rests on the premise that any idea is there to be attacked and if it withstands the attack then it lives to fight another day and if it doesn't withstand the attack then down it goes. Religion doesn't seem to work like that; it has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. That's an idea we're so familiar with, whether we subscribe to it or not, that it's kind of odd to think what it actually means, because really what it means is 'Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not? - because you're not!' If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it, but on the other hand if somebody says 'I mustn't move a light switch on a Saturday', you say, 'Fine, I respect that'. The odd thing is, even as I am saying that I am thinking 'Is there an Orthodox Jew here who is going to be offended by the fact that I just said that?' but I wouldn't have thought 'Maybe there's somebody from the left wing or somebody from the right wing or somebody who subscribes to this view or the other in economics' when I was making the other points. I just think 'Fine, we have different opinions'. But, the moment I say something that has something to do with somebody's (I'm going to stick my neck out here and say irrational) beliefs, then we all become terribly protective and terribly defensive and say 'No, we don't attack that; that's an irrational belief but no, we respect it'."

Which covers it far more eloquently than I ever could.

Nicholas, we are allowed to criticise religion. I haven't heard anyone on this thread assert otherwise.

What I've been getting at on this thread is that using deliberately inflammatory etc. language will cause offense, and have a negative impact on conversation between believers and non-believers because faith is so incredibly intrinsic to the believer; in my case, more intrinsic than any other aspect of who I am. I still don't see why it can be a good thing to deliberately offend someone with whom you're trying to talk. Intimidation, maybe? Cheap point-scoring? Self-satisfaction? Lack of engagement with what the other person'ssaying so hide behind inflammatory words that keep the other person at bay? Really, what is the point?

I honestly don't understand how this is okay, without also making homophobia, racism, sexism etc etc okay too, or unless the offensive person is telling me what my religion is to me (i.e. non-intrinsic to me), which I do not accept as a valid argument (because then all the homophobes would be within their rights to tell gay peple that their sexuality is a disease, etc etc).

Cote - I could reply with an answer regarding the phenomenology of childhood imagimary friends, and the phenomenology of religion. Is that what you would like?

Holo, homophobia etc are unacceptable because gays, blacks and women are very heterogeneous groups, and it is thus unreasonable to tar all with the same brush. By contrast, everyone who affiliates with most mainstream religions is unavoidably lending their support to homophobia, sexism and many other deeply distasteful views, making them ripe for strong criticism. I'm tolerant of everything but intolerance. It's not always productive to be too forceful, but the desire to shock religious people out of their comfortable intellectual havens is sometimes too much to resist.

I see your thinking Jo, but having been a Christian all my life, it sounds to me as if you're tarring all believers with the same brush. Anyway, gay people are very far from one heterogeneous group. As are women, etc. Why should they be so?

That the impulse is too much to resist I can understand, but again, I can't condone it, otherwise I'd have to condone racists not being able to stop themselves from using offensive language, etc. So I'm still not convinced.

'I think most atheists don't say 'anyone who believes is clearly nuts' (although some do).
But what they do say is 'there is not good reason to believe in god' etc...'

If there is a reason then we are not really talking about belief. You can't really believe in something that is demonstrably there. You either accept what your eyes see or your ears hear or you don't. Not to believe what is tangible would be a bit silly. The point about belief is that it is belief and not acceptance of something tangible. The point about science is that it is about understanding and questioning and there is no 'believe' to it.

Jo, just realised that you said heterogeneity and not homogeneity; my apologies. Yes, I agree, women vary. :) (But so do religious believers!)

Math, yes, I hear you. Not sure if I agree, but I hear you.

The religious are heterogeneous in many ways, but in so far as they ally themselves with mainstream religions they homogeneously encourage mainstream religions' intolerance, and therein lies the problem.

You would not have to condone racist abuse, rather abuse directed at racists. It is the tolerant abusing the intolerant which I can empathise with.

But Jo really....I think you're wrong. I know it's easy to characterise religious people as intolerant, judgemental, etc, and in some cases that's justified, but in many cases, people of faith can be the most accepting, loving people in any given locality. I could tell you some stories. You might argue that churches are organisationally intolerant etc, but again, I could tell you some stories. It's the automatic 'religious= intolerant=fair game for abuse' logic that I object to.

Holo I don't think you are reading what Jo was getting at there. The point, as far as I read it, is that by identifying as a religion (specifically organised religions) you are lending your support to an organisation. An organisation which is, in a lot of cases, intolerant.

Yes, the aim of using non-polite language about people's delusions and imaginary friends is not to attack individuals' beliefs, however silly - it's to challenge the concept that this irrational nonsense should be treated with 'respect' when it is harming others or getting in the way of progress, as it so often does. People fighting for equality, or reproductive rights, or against the mutilation of children's genitals in the name of an imaginary friend still get told that they need to be 'respectful' towards the 'culture' and 'faith' that is doing the harm. Why the fuck should we respect ignorant barbarism?

On a lesser level, when people want to (for instance) put up bloody great fences to make a boundary so they can switch on lights which they wouldn't otherwise be 'allowed' to switch on on, as their imaginary friend doesn't like it, why should other people have to have their view/right of way interfered with on the grounds that a bunch of prats can't get over their witless superstitions?

Surely it depends which church / denomination you identify with. Is there a difference, also, between an organisation which explicitly aims to be intolerant of others (eg BNP) and another which intends to love the world, but gets a fair few things wrong (the churches?) surely in the BNP you have to be intolerant to be part of it, it's written in, whereas there's nothing in the Christian faith that says you have to be intolerant.

Holo: the mythological brand which is the Official Superstition in this country has just formally declared that women are inferior, second-class human beings. THat's a clear example of people denying other people rights on the grounds that their imaginary friend wouldn't like it. So, once again, why should rational people be expected to treat this harmful bullshit with respect?

Holo - religion isn't intrinsic like someones colour or sexuality. It really isn't something inherent. There are too many people who have been christians who are now atheists, atheists who are now christians, christians who are now muslims for that to be true.

If you had been born into a different culture, you'd still have the same colour, the same sexuality but its a fair bet that your religion would be different.

I'm liking DianaTrent's post

Ah, I give up. Enough of trying to explain. If you haven't got it by now...see you on another thread!

Holo just because you can't see your faith changing doesn't mean you can't choose to change your faith, or that there is nothing that the church could do which might make you break away from it.

There are some labels which I/my parents have chosen to apply to me that I could never imagine removing, but they are there by choice (for example mathematician, bookworm, atheist). There are other labels that are there for now but I'm not that dedicated to (for example cyclist) and am likely to change in the futre. My sexuality and race however I have no choice over, that just is and is not something I can consciously change.

In a free society things which have been chosen should be rigorously debated and joked about. Those which have been determined by a chance of biology should be protected.

You have no right not to have your choices mocked. If you are solid in your faith then surely a little teasing will not harm it?

Thank you Georgian, I'm glad you didn't take offense, I didn't mean any, but words can look harsh when written down.

I did write a big reply, but I've had a couple of glasses of wine now and when I read it back it didn't even make sense to me! Anyway, suffice to say that I've really enjoyed this thread, it's come at just the right time for me, and it's been very interesting to read other people's views.

Damn. No sooner do I find this thread than Holo bows out (I've never known her quit before!)

I suppose the thing is that if you have a faith then you just do.

As an atheist I just dont. Being an atheist does not mean that I have to believe in something else instead - I dont.

I am interested in the sciences but I dont believe in them.

Well I'll just share a version of one of my favourite quotes on the subject.

Religion is like a penis.
It's OK to have one
It's OK to be proud of it.
There's no need to get it out and wave it about in public.
And other people don't want it shoved down their throats.

SGY
Re your last; I do occasionally. But that's a Friday night topic!

Shouldn't there be something about 'only between consenting adults' in there too?

Holo, in case you're still about, your many attempts to explain wer much appreciated by me. I think you made some really good points and argued well. Thank you.

I am a christian, who attends a CofE church. I've been thinking about the whole 'intolerance' thing a lot lately, as you might imagine. If I continue to go to a CofE, am I tacitly agreeing that women are inferior? I've concluded that I am not agreeing with that, tacitly or otherwise. I am acutely aware of the issues and am not ignoring them. It's just that the style of worship at my particular church, together with the teaching, is the 'best-fit' model for me at the moment. Plus I feel that the Anglican church is but one piddling little branch of Christianity - there's a whole world of believers out there and they're humans, which makes some of them, sadly, intolerant, homophobic, racist, narrow-minded, whereas others are kind, gentle, peacemaking, intelligent, thoughtful types - much like the general population, really. Being a Christian does not make one perfect, not does it make one above reproach.

The notion that merely by professing a christian faith or attending an Anglican church makes me intolerant is, to be honest, not one I'm going to entertain. Other people can claim that about me if they wish and I'm OK with them mocking my beliefs too. I'd think them rude if they did it to my face, but I don't have a problem with the principle that religion is not above questioning, doubt and mockery. My own faith requires, I think, an element of doubt. Otherwise it's gone beyond faith and into the realms of certainty. Maybe it's certainty I have a problem with. Maybe that's what led to this whole thread. Hmm...interesting...

Again, for all your thoughts and replies, thank you.

technodad, you wrote: I don't want to be bloody well blessed thank you very much (especially if god just killed my mate that I have just buried - if god exists, he can get fucked!).

I have huge sympathy with this, despite being a Catholic - or because of it. You may hate me saying this, but you are knowingly or not in tune with some of the psalms and the lamentations of Jeremiah. I kinda assume any god worth the name can take some abuse from time to time.

Sieglinde

I don't hate you saying it, but it doesn't mean I believe in god because of it. Far from it in fact.

The idea that it is OK to be angry with god because bad things happen, is just another effort to emotionally control people who have been brainwashed, to stop them from having doubts.

It is far more logical to conclude (not least because of the enormous amounts of evidence) that bad things happen because of random chance in the universe, than it is to naively believe another crap excuse about "it being gods way".