Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Philosophy/religion

Join our Philosophy forum to discuss religion and spirituality.

Original poster

Is being pubicly atheist a recent thing, especially re. collective worship?

691 replies

wanderings · 01/10/2015 15:34

Firstly, I'm taking no sides - I had strong atheist views when I was younger, but gradually changed my mind.

There are many threads on MN about this, especially annoyance by atheist parents about collective worship in schools, and I have been wondering if it's recent that people have felt so strongly about it. I find it hard to imagine buses in the 1980s and 90s saying "there probably is no God", or parents taking their children out of assembly, or people muttering and sneering in the back row when attending baptisms (under duress): if it happened I was blissfully ignorant.

Speaking for myself, I rebelled with my heart and soul when my parents suddenly dragged me to catholic church every Sunday when I was 9. I saw the whole thing as utter nonsense, and a waste of valuable weekend time. However, I gradually changed my mind as an adult, but went CofE rather than catholic. I took the view that you did not have to take a literal view of the Bible and the church's teachings; as a child I was very literal-minded. I also love the sense of community in church.

Does anyone think it is because a generation of young adults are remembering being forced to obediently sing hymns, hear prayers from their school days, had to learn "impossibilities" such as the great flood, and are now making sure their children won't have to do the same, now that they have the right to say something which they didn't as a child?

OP posts:
madhairday · 04/10/2015 15:20

Sorry and yes, will take a look at the Gould material too. There is so much and today I'm a bear of very little brain :)

Ricardian · 04/10/2015 15:26

nothing seems to sufficiently answer the development of the simplest of organic molecules

So why don't you write up your proof of this? It's worth at least a PhD, and you'd probably get a couple of good papers out of it, too. The issue of the origins of DNA and RNA is a major and serious research topic, so I'm sure the people working in the field would be agog to hear your proof that it's impossible.

CoteDAzur · 04/10/2015 15:49

"to sufficiently answer the development of the simplest of organic molecules"

I studied organic chemistry for the equivalent of A Levels and IIRC there is no question re "development" of organic molecules. Atoms bind where they can to form molecules, and organic molecules are no different.

Are you under the impression that organic molecules are alive?

Lweji · 04/10/2015 15:56

The simplest of organic molecules can be found in many places and somewhat more complex, such as amino acids, in space, if I'm not mistaken.

Organic molecules are essentially those with carbon (although not all), and they can be as simple as CH4.

goblinhat · 04/10/2015 16:04

Amino acids, peptides and proteins are relatively simply molecules. As is DNA.

I know this as a scientist - I have synthesised DNA and rNA from chemicals in a laboratory. Thousands of times.

AlanPacino · 04/10/2015 16:10

nothing seems to sufficiently answer....

How does one go from 'I'm not convinced by the science behind this explanation' to 'and therefore it was all done by the God of the religion of the culture and time I was born into'.

TheSwallowingHandmaiden · 04/10/2015 16:17

I'd like to apologise for the profanities last night and my aggressive reactions to some posters. I was humbled by the accusations of being a poor reflection of Christ.

I'm happy there are people on MN who glorify God Thanks

goblinhat · 04/10/2015 16:21

TheSwallowingHandmaiden

Seems you have let god down.

Or you can be simply Homo Sapien.

Lweji · 04/10/2015 17:10

Well, that was at least a good other cheek. :) I hope you are feeling better, maiden.

EdithSimcox · 04/10/2015 17:59

Bit nervous to jump into this thread Shock but...

for what purpose and to what end

Someone said only a Christian would ask that. But it might be precisely because someone starts asking that question that they may become a Christian - or take up any religion. That is why there are people, of whom I am one, who say on threads like these 'I used to be atheist but..' There was some scepticism about that up thread but it is not hard to fathom IME.

In partial answer to the OP, I think its an MN thing tbh. But that may be because I have no experience of the daily act of worship actually happening. In the 3 schools that I have direct experience of in the last 10 years, none of them do it. No religion is accorded any more respect or credence then any other, and assembles etc are secular. In fact one of the DCs primaries was chastised by Ofsted for teaching a range of religious festivals except Christian ones. One had a Christmas concert in a church but was banned when they got a new minister because the school has always asked for no prayers and the new minister didn't accept that. From then on the Christmas concert was in the school hall. The most religious of the 3 has a carol service - so that's one Christian service per year.

I have never seen any of the behaviour you describe - muttering at baptisms (who has a baptism these days unless they are actually Christian, rather than just culturally so?), taking kids out of assemblies etc in RL.

madhairday · 04/10/2015 18:50

No, I'm sorry, I meant cell formation, where I got organic molecules from I'm not sure apart from scrambled brain.

Teach me to try and join into threads when I am feeling so utterly crap.

Sorry but at least it gave you a laugh.

Lweji · 04/10/2015 19:00

Nobody knows for sure how cells first formed, but, and in a very simplistic view, some fat molecules form hollow spheres. The cell membrane forms virtually automatically. So it can act to shelter organic molecules.
RNA acts as an enzyme and can self replicate. DNA would have been a later stage.
It just takes a very loooooooooong time.

AbeSaidYes · 04/10/2015 19:20

Wow, missed a lot of this thread but wanted to jump back in to say that I might be seen as an atheist by other people because I have no religion and never have but I don't describe myself as 'an atheist' nor do I hang around in atheist groups berating the religious.

I just want to, and want my child who has no religion to, be left alone by people who think religion must be put into our lives.

Why must it be put into my life when I do not have it, never have had it and don't want it?

BigDorrit · 04/10/2015 21:29

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

AlanPacino · 05/10/2015 18:37

As an atheist I am in a position to be able to accept facts if there was ever demonstrable evidence of a deity, whoever that deity was. As a believer in a particular faith you are limited to interpreting and attributing to a particular God, and I'm not.

Jellytussle · 06/10/2015 11:59

Out of interest, what evidence would convince you of the existence of a deity?

BigDorrit · 06/10/2015 15:14

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BertrandRussell · 06/10/2015 15:42

What evidence would convince me? Well, some would be a good start. However, the problem is that without faith religion is nothing. Rational people get to the edge of the evidence and say "Right, I'm fine here until more evidence comes along". Religious people shut their eyes and jump.

Jellytussle · 06/10/2015 16:17

I have no preconceptions as to what evidence would convince me.

A theist would argue that the evidence for God's existence is all around us, and that God is encountered directly in religious activities.

You on the other hand are not willing to count the organisation of the universe, or the experience of prayer, as evidence of the existence of God. So you clearly do have preconceptions about what evidence would convince you.

You and the theist have different assumptions about what sort of evidence can support a belief. The question is, do your assumptions actually leave open the possibility that there could ever be evidence for the existence of God?

(David Hume argued there can never be convincing evidence for a miracle's having taken place, because we would require such high standards of evidence for something so unlikely that those standards could never be met.)

BertrandRussell · 06/10/2015 16:28

I think we may need to define "evidence". Evidence needs to be verifiable, falsifiable and repeatable. Otherwise it's not evidence.

niminypiminy · 06/10/2015 16:32

Does the evidence that is permissible in a court of law have to be all three? (or, indeed, any of the three?)

Jellytussle · 06/10/2015 16:35

That's a bold claim.

If true, it would suggest that there is very little evidence available in sciences such as cosmology or geology.

What do you mean by 'verifiable'?

BertrandRussell · 06/10/2015 16:53

Verifiable? It just means testable.

Jellytussle · 06/10/2015 17:00

So it's the same as falsifiable then? Or does that mean something different?

BertrandRussell · 06/10/2015 17:06

Falsifiable means that it must be possbile to think up an experiment or a discovery that would prove your theory wrong. So, for example, it would be possible to find fossils that would show that the theory of evolution was wrong. It hasn't happened (and isn't going to happen Grin but theoretically it could happen.