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?

Isn't it more comforting to tell him (Him) to fuck off, though? You can't tell random chance to fuck off - or it's not as much fun, anyway. I always think the most rational idea of god would be a god who is not benevolent - a god who likes watching us quiver and squirm. I think the moments last century where observant Jews eventually said 'there is no god' are the most cogent refutation of religion ever.

However, and back on topic, I do wish you wouldn't say brainwashed. I don't believe in brainwashing. I think I'm responsible for my choices and my ideas, thanks very much. I don't think I'm under any emotional control, either. Go on, prove it; prove that I am. To save time, I won't accept as proof the idea that I have religious beliefs; there could be many reasons for those.

Sieglinde - (hi!) - Have you read Thinking Fast and Slow?

There is pretty good evidence that a of our thinking, choices and beliefs are not got to rationally, but by intuitive and emotional guesswork.

This applies not just to questions of religion, but pretty much everything.

We all feel we are responsible for our ideas in a rational way, but if you really were that would make you unique amongst human beings!

Isn't it more comforting to tell him (Him) to fuck off, though?
I don't find it so. I'd much rather have a universe that just is what it is, than the idea of a God who either doesn't about suffering, actually causes suffering or has some inscrutable plan which means he built a world of suffering and can't intervene.
The rest of your first para is pretty much spot on.

'Brainwash' is rarely the appropriate term ( it implies coercion and a change of belief). However, everyone's 'choices' are against the context of their nurture. In many cases (I do not mean you!), people don't really get exposed to other options in a balanced way so they really don't have a valid choice. In those circumstances, 'indoctrinate' might be apt.

Hope no one's telling me to fuck off

"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."

That makes sense. However from an outside perspective by not actively disassociating yourself from an organisation that is actively involved in intolerant behaviour it does come across as condoning their behaviour. Or at least allowing it to continue unchecked.

Isn't it more comforting to tell him (Him) to fuck off, though? You can't tell random chance to fuck off - or it's not as much fun, anyway. I always think the most rational idea of god would be a god who is not benevolent - a god who likes watching us quiver and squirm.

Why would being angry at a childish image of a white man with a beard sitting on a cloud make me feel any better about a friend dying? How ridiculous.

The world is full of random events, and the randomness of someone?s genetic code is part of that universe. I can be angry all I want, but it achieves nothing. Maybe I should just channel my energy to grieving personal loss, supporting their loved-ones, and remembering the good times. I know this concept is not very Christian, but it the way I prefer to live my life.

I do wish you wouldn't say brainwashed

My brainwashing comments refer to the fact that children are indoctrinated into religion by schools at an early age, and that this doesn?t allow them to make a choice. Teaching a 4 year old that god made the world and telling them they must pray, is not education, it is a form of brainwashing ? fact! GTN, I am happy with the term indoctrination, but brainwashing is more apt for a young child. A huge amount of many religions (Irish Catholic as an example) are founded on fear and brainwashing.

Himalaya, not yet

Hi! (Waves enthusiastically to Himalaya) Hima, totally agree that humans are not always rational, and in fact are mostly anything but, but this is not the same as saying people are 'brainwashed', which just seems to me a weasel word.

I think few religions are able to control people enough to prevent exposure to alternatives in the modern world; in the 19th century, perhaps. Even then, intelligent people could still think of questions for themselves.

I don't think you have to 'actively disassociate' - but to avoid being accused of condoning intolerance you then have to actively oppose it from within. Which is of course exactly what many members of the CofE will do now.

Sorry, techno, crossposted with you. How you grieve is your business, but anger is part of most grief - it's a stage, even, in grieving, and I did not intend to imply that it was the only stage. It does actually achieve something to recognise and express the feelings associated with each stage; that's how we move on.

You still haven't defined 'brainwashing', except to imply that it consists of an imperative enforced by fear. But that isn't really what the term means. It's true that guilt is a big part of it, but so too is the destruction of the sense of a self. It's also only a theory, and quite a paranoid conspiratorial theory at that, from the Cold War era.

seiglinde - I said: exposed to other options in a balanced way - that's the point.

Yeah, but Grimma, isn't it all but impossible really to be balanced when it comes to our children and our opinions? I hope my children know that my opinions are just that...

I doubt anyone can be totally balanced but some parents are ' This Is The Truth'. Children of Jehovah's Witnesses who are excluded from RE; children from fundamentalist Christian or Muslim families who've been taught from day one that the Bible or the Koran is the supreme authority and anything science says which contradicts (their interpretation of it) is wrong. There seem to be quite a few of the latter nowadays, unfortunately.

And some parents are categorical the other way, telling their children there is no god but that some people have an imaginary friend, etc etc' that 'god has been disproved by science, that religion is all about sex' and so on. If that leaves no room for the child to explore his or her own spirituality that is indoctrination too. And it is actively encouraging children to be disdainful of other people who have faith.

As far as I can see, people of faith do not have sole property of 'this is the truth': quite the reverse.

It's just that it's kind of difficult, if you are a rational person wishing to teach your child to get along in the world and be happy, to say with a straight face 'Well, some people have this imaginary friend that insists that women are inferior to men and that gay people should be executed, but we're not supposed to tell them this is a crock of shit in case it upsets them. And because nobody knows if it's true or not.'

Certainly if you say that to them you will not be teaching them to have good manners, either by precept or example.

The problem with being offensive is the arguments for removal of religious privilege disappear. It stops being a discussion about what is most desirable for society and becomes a personal attack.

Minds are not changed instantly, but discussion provides food for thought. However if the discussion ends with one person calling the other a fuckwit that is what will be remembered. The rational arguments get lost. The example given about calling a neo-nazi a fuckwit says a fair bit about the ego of the person who expects another to instantly ditch a deeply held belief because they think you should.

Fortunately, a lot of rational people manage to frame their discussions with their children in rather different terms. More often than not I seem to have to play the role of - how to put it - the gods advocate ...which ususally gets me this look .... the point is that whatever DD ends up believing (or more likely, not, on current form) I want it to be a thought-out considered position. Not one arrived at by being dismissive of large sections of the population most of whose versions of god don't want gays executed or women oppressed and who didn't create the world in 6 days.

"The example given about calling a neo-nazi a fuckwit says a fair bit about the ego of the person who expects another to instantly ditch a deeply held belief because they think you should."

Who said anything about changing someone's mind? It was more about stating the facts.

I agree with that post of yours Grimma

Himalaya -- yes there is nothing new under the sun

I think that calling a neo-nazi a fuckwit is pretty tame really. Sure it's sweary slang but essentially it is the same as saying that they are a stupid idiot. It has little in this case to do with the ego of the non neo-nazi who is probably well aware that the person they are talking to has absolutely zero intention of ever ditching their opinion because they are in fact a truly nasty piece of work and genuinely believe that they are intrinsically superior to other people who they consider should not be considered as human by nature of their ethnicity.

People with beliefs like this don't change their mind as a result of conversations with the well meaning. They live in a warped reality.

This is a bit of a side conversation, although it does slightly remind me a little bit of the individuals who have tried to persuade me that really and truly I am just waiting for the right moment to 'find god' and that they are the ones to take me by the hand and lead me down that path. I guess to the religious atheists also live in a warped reality because of their lack of faith, whereas to atheists the religious appear fundamentally to be delusional. It certainly doesn't make for easy conversations!

Niminypiminy -- My youngest DD has a friend who is openly dismissive of religion and has been since age 4, thanks to the oft expressed pinions of her dad. It's nothing but rudeness imo to bring up a child to think there are no holds barred when it comes to matters of belief, to call Christmas 'Fishmas' when you see someone else's nativity scene set out, but write a long list for Santa.

I feel that when a young child parrots strident opinions of that sort there is some sort of conflict going on, some upset in the child.

Same child attends a steiner school and the parents are quite ok with the concept of gnomes (apologies Grimma) to teach maths, and the whole anthroposphy (sp?) thang that underpins steiner schools and is woven through the curriculum structure and content. Family puts up a Fish Christmas tree...

yes, math, and yy niminy. My point is that people banging on about pink unicorns can be just as foot-down definite as any Jehovah's Witness. I know liberal, enquiring, curious people of all faiths and of no faith, and I don't like dogmatism in any form.

I'd rather simply tell my dcs that yes, this is my faith, and these are my views, clear and straight, but also tell them that this is not an insistence that it be their faith too. I would in all truth be entirely happy for them to find God in their own way/s. That might include making a god of empiricism, though I do wish the current empiricists were less dogmatic, and also a bit less stupid about the human animal and its needs and desires. Perhaps I might hope that the next generation might be more liberal and tolerant atheists than some - not all - of the current stars. I especially dislike the feeble cultural history of memes that Dawkins and his sect offer; it explains nothing at all, and maddens me not as a Catholic but as a historian.

Sieglinde-

It is obviously polite not to go on about pink unicorns etc...at a wedding, christening or whatever

But normally if you know something to be true beyond reasonable doubt (... unless new evidence shows up..) it is ok to say so - e.g. The earth is round, AIDS is caused by HIV, the Norse gods are ancient mythology, homeopathy works through the placebo effect, drinking bleach is dangerous etc...

It is perfectly possible to be liberal, enquiring and curious and yet to rule out some hypotheses (what is the point of being enquiring if you can never rule out any possibilities for fear of being "dogmatic").

So the question comes back to why it is deemed dogmatic to rule out the god hypothesis, but not the pink unicorn one.

(Obviously, the world isn't really "round" )