Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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:
Namechangerworship · 06/10/2015 22:58

Thread has probably moved on but I had a recent thread about collective worship on MN. Regardless of the rights or wrongs of CW in schools the head was breaking the law by denying religious and no faith children the right to withdraw from CW.

She said it showed a lack of tolerance for other religions (just CofE obviously). I argued where was the tolerance for other/no faith. She said that was a double negative. She said it was against the recent edict from the gov to promote British values (presumably ignoring the rule of law enshrined in British values).

We are at stalemate.

Jellytussle · 06/10/2015 23:30

Theists are not engaged in a scientific exploration of god. Religion and science are different disciplines.

Well, exactly. So why are people so insistent on applying scientific ideas of 'evidence' outside of science?

BrendaFlange · 06/10/2015 23:35

why are people so insistent on applying scientific ideas of 'evidence' outside of science?
They are not.

AlanPacino · 07/10/2015 06:41

It occurs to me that theists use a wildly different evidence threshold for their chosen religion as they require for every other area of their life

To the theists on here; at what point would you believe me if I told you I could fly without any special equipment and just by flapping my wings?

BertrandRussell · 07/10/2015 08:01

"Well, exactly. So why are people so insistent on applying scientific ideas of 'evidence' outside of science?"

As I have said several times on this thread, if theists didn't keep saying there is evidence for the existence of God I would stop asking for it!

mimishimmi · 07/10/2015 08:19

Generally I find people from other religions really like Jesus but they don't trust some Christians who don't really follow his teachings... just sayin'.

Noone should be made to feel guilty because some random guy died on a cross 2 thousand years ago. They'd do it again today (think war on terror).

Jellytussle · 07/10/2015 08:44

why are people so insistent on applying scientific ideas of 'evidence' outside of science?
They are not.

Then why have several people on this thread insisted that evidence for the existence of God would only count if it were testable, repeatable and so on?

BigDorrit · 07/10/2015 09:22

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BertrandRussell · 07/10/2015 09:39

"Then why have several people on this thread insisted that evidence for the existence of God would only count if it were testable, repeatable and so on?"

You asked what evidence would convince me. That's the sort of evidence I would need. You don't need it because you have faith, which by definition does not require evidence.

But if you say have evidence for the existence of God then you need to back it up. If, on the other hand you say I think God exists because I have faith then no evidence is required. Or will be asked for.

capsium · 07/10/2015 10:22

Hebrews 11: 1-3 says,

"11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
2 For by it the elders obtained a good report.
3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

So this would put forward the assertion that faith is evidence, namely evidence of things present which are invisible to us. Also, as faith is described as being 'the substance of things hoped for', it gives a significance to the act of hoping when faced with the unseen and unknown.

This is not so very different to the assumptions that need to be made, by everyone, throughout life. If you are to study anything, scientifically, there needs to be the assumption / hope, there that there is knowledge to be gained, otherwise it would be a futile act which nobody would invest their time, money or energy in.

So why criticise faith?

Twunk · 07/10/2015 10:26

I don't believe only science requires evidence. I like to think (though not sure how much I am able to dispose of my personal feelings and prejudices) that I make many decisions and assumptions based on the evidence available, coupled with my world view of essentially being nice to each other.

It's interesting though, going back to the OP, that atheists 'need' to be tolerant of children being told that god does exist. I wonder if the opposite were true? Would it be considered such a benign "we need to give them the knowledge to make up their own minds as they get older" if "The likelihood is that God doesn't exist" was preached in assembly? I suspect not.

Jellytussle · 07/10/2015 10:28

You asked what evidence would convince me. That's the sort of evidence I would need.

Exactly my point. The question of God's existence is outside of the context or remit of science, yet you are insisting that you will only accept 'scientific' evidence. And you've struggled to give a clear or coherent account of what scientific evidence is.

I find it odd that in these arguments it's often the atheists who come across as the ones most wedded to dogma and uncritical assumption.

Jellytussle · 07/10/2015 10:36

I'm still waiting for you to present what you consider to be evidence...

Did I say I was going to?

Well, let me see. Many churchgoers report that they have private experiences of direct communication with God. If that happened to me, I'd probably find it quite compelling. I could also imagine being convinced of the existence of God by some sort of argument from first principles. Or perhaps by a study of the history of the early church. I dare say there are other possibilities I haven't considered.

capsium · 07/10/2015 10:38

"... wonder if the opposite were true? Would it be considered such a benign "we need to give them the knowledge to make up their own minds as they get older" if "The likelihood is that God doesn't exist" was preached in assembly? I suspect not."

I would not consider it benign, no because quite simply it goes against what I believe it right. If someone, as an atheist, describes themselves as having no belief in God, how can any type of assertion as to likelihood of God's existence go against their absence of belief?

I have to be tolerant of my DC being told this by people simply because this idea exists within society and we are free to believe as we do and I am ok with this.

Twunk · 07/10/2015 10:41

I believe quite strongly that there is no God. I would not happy for my children to be taught as fact as there is. Why does your belief trump mine?

Twunk · 07/10/2015 10:43

I am Ok with you holding your beliefs too Capsium but I wouldn't be happy if you tried to convert my children, just as you wouldn't be happy if I tried to convert yours to my personally held convictions.

capsium · 07/10/2015 10:44

I never said my belief does 'trump' your's Twunk, although, since it is my belief, I can believe it is right and does in actuality.

Twunk · 07/10/2015 10:46

In the sense of the OP Capsium - in schools.

Twunk · 07/10/2015 10:47

Seriously I have no trouble with any faith but I don't believe that belief in God should be "taught" in schools. Religions and culture - yes! Not worship. It simply doesn't belong there.

capsium · 07/10/2015 10:48

I would not be at all happy if you attempted to convert my DC, Twunk although I would have to tolerate it, if you had already expressed your beliefs (interesting you describe your atheism as a belief, many do not) to them. I would deal with it because my DC live amongst society and are free to believe as they do, as anyone is.

Twunk · 07/10/2015 10:49

A lack of it shouldn't be preached either by the way. My DSs go to a non- religious school (we're not in the uk). It is possible.

Twunk · 07/10/2015 10:51

I don't know what to call it Capsium - it's a world view, my personal mantra... whatever. I don't speak for all atheists. I wasn't especially thinking about the terms I used though I see things were getting to that "you used this word - what exactly do you mean by that? stage.

Twunk · 07/10/2015 10:53

Similarly I don't have trouble with faith but I do with religions to be clear.

capsium · 07/10/2015 10:55

Just by way of clarification, Twunk. If atheism is understood in terms of being a belief, the same atheists really cannot criticise having faith, can they?

capsium · 07/10/2015 10:59

Ah, x post. I understand a problem with religions better considering history. What I would say is that the problems possessed by the religious are the same as those non religious, that is greed for money, power and land and hatred of others is not exclusive to the religious.

Swipe left for the next trending thread