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

[wanderings]

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?

"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.

As I have said several times, faith obviously does not require evidence otherwise it would not be faith. You stop saying that there is evidence for the existence of God and I'll stop asking for it.

And you've struggled to give a clear or coherent account of what scientific evidence is. No, I haven't. You appear to have struggled to understand it. That is rather different

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.

Which particular dogma and uncritical assumptions do you say we are wedded to?

Sorry half day for schools on Wednesday so picking up children now - will get back to you later!

Capsicum, you have said frequently on many other threads in the context of worship in schools that you do not actually care about what other people might want- you want collective worship, you have collective worship and as far as you are concerned that's it.

"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?"

And no, atheism is not a belief.

And I do not criticise people for having faith. I criticise them if they impose their faith on other people, expect special treatment because of it or for trying to say that there is evidence to support their belief system while refusing to allow that evidence to be subject to scrutiny.

If atheism is understood in terms of being a belief, the same atheists really cannot criticise having faith, can they?

it's not a belief. an atheist is like an aleprachaunist. I assume you don't chase the ends of rainbows to find gold, do you? Well, I would say you have faith that leprachauns don't exist.

At OP:

I am an immigrant from america, and we just don't have this religious encroachment in schools. In fact, the first amendment is the anti-establishment clause, so the government, in theory, is supposed to be neutral on any religious question.

So, this is all new to me (I live in England now) and, frankly, it disgusts me. I don't understand where people think they get the right to preach at my children while captive at school.

Oopsies! my fault, they get that right from the government.

Wrong on every level.

You stop saying that there is evidence for the existence of God

I haven't started saying that, so it would be hard to stop.

And you've struggled to give a clear or coherent account of what scientific evidence is. No, I haven't. You appear to have struggled to understand it. That is rather different

Well, you've given three supposed criteria, but it turns out that by two of them you mean the same thing, falsifiability. Which was proposed as an alternative to the notion of scientific evidence, not as an explanation of what evidence is.

Inasmuch as I'm struggling to understand your account, I suspect that's because you don't really understand it yourself.

Which particular dogma and uncritical assumptions do you say we are wedded to?

I was thinking in this case of your ideas about what constitutes evidence.

Sigh. When I was talking about atheism and belief, I was seeking clarification regarding Twunk's post, here:

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?

i am okay with this*
Would you be equally okay if the HT at your dc's school invited a leader from a different faith to lead communication with the god they believe in? And to do it regularly. And not to have any other faith leader in? Would you be equally okay? If not your stance is hypocritical in the extreme and you're being dishonest when you say you are tolerant.

direct communication with god

And the people who think they have had direct communication with a different God, or the same God who says something the opposite of what he says to another person who equal feels they are in direct communication. Or all the people who claim to be in direct communication with spirits, aliens and so on? Is it not more logical to assume people are capable of believing and imagining all sorts of things as opposed to a God who is forgetful and/or deliberately confuses people by saying different things to different people?

And if atheism is regarded as a non belief, there still remains this question.

"... 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?

Alan if the hyperthetical situation you described was within the law, I would have to accept it, that is I would have to tolerate it. It would not bring me happiness, no, however since I believe it is right people can freely hold the beliefs, that they do, I have to tolerate the possibility they might share them. If they acted against the law, my argument would be in regards to this.

Sigh. When I was talking about atheism and belief, I was seeking clarification regarding Twunk's post, here:

Ah. I can't answer then really.

I don't believe strongly there is no God. I do believe strongly there is no Abrahamic God, but there could be a God of sorts.

I would not consider it benign, no because quite simply it goes against what I believe it right.

But you are happy for others to be in that position?

*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?

That's what the central idea is. Keep in mind, we only have this word because most people at one point believed in god. There is no similar words for non belief in other mythical creatures. So, an atheist is someone who thinks evidence for god is little or entirely absent. The conclusion from that is that it's likely god doesn't exist.

Just making lunch. I said "I believe there is no god" - so I was using the corresponding noun to the verb. I then went on to clarify that I don't know what word to use in the sense of an absence of belief in God. However what I believe are still my beliefs. The word 'belief' is not restricted to "belief in a faith". I apologise if my less than crystal clear use of words confused you Capsium (though I don't think it did tbh).

I would have to accept it, that is I would have to tolerate it. It would not bring me happiness, no, however since I believe it is right people can freely hold the beliefs, that they do, I have to tolerate the possibility they might share them.

but that law would be wrong and we (you and I) should try and change it. I don't want ANYONE to be preached at without the preachee's consent, and I don't want any religion to have a special platform.

That's different than accepting that people who believe in something will want to share it. Of course religious people have the right to spread the "good word". that right, however, gets elevated when a special platform is given to the preaching.

red everybody is in 'that position'. People share their beliefs all the time. I don't believe the same as everyone else yet I (and my DC) are still exposed to other beliefs. I don't agree with every assumptions or implementation within educational policy but I have to tolerate it and accept it as happening. I might challenge aspects I think are wrong but, if people are acting within the law it is up to me to convince enough people, to change the way things are done....which I am free to do.

i would have to accept it*

But laws are made by humans and change in light of attitudes. You would just go along with one religion being touted, if you had the opportunity to vote to end it, would you? What would you say if someone asked if you were happy and supported it?

red but how can I believe something that I believe is implicitly right is implicitly wrong?

So I would let you fight (as per your rights within the law) to try to change the law, in this country, regarding the provision of Christian worship in schools but would not get involved myself.

Alan if I was given a vote I would vote according to my beliefs.

I don't believe the same as everyone else yet I (and my DC) are still exposed to other beliefs. I don't agree with every assumptions or implementation within educational policy but I have to tolerate it and accept it as happening. I might challenge aspects I think are wrong but, if people are acting within the law it is up to me to convince enough people, to change the way things are done....which I am free to do.

There is a distinction between educational policy, which has tangible benefits and evidence for and against their efficacy, and being preached at. One (religion or lack there of) is a protected characteristic in this country (well, except when you enter a school, magically the British value of non-discrimination based on religion evaporates at schools), and "my favourite educational policy" is not a protected characteristic.

Apples and oranges.

one thing that drives me crazy in this country is this attitude. You have at least come out and said "I like it. it benefits me. Suffer". The sheer lack of empathy with those of us who don't want our kids preached at, which you agree would be bad, is quite saddening actually. It's strange to hear someone agree the situation is bad, even unfair, but then admit it benefits them so they are happy with the status quo.

how can I believe something that I believe is implicitly right is implicitly wrong?

You clearly are a believer in christianity. But you can certainly believe it's wrong for any religion to have a privileged place in society. The framers of the US constitution were in that position, and I see now how they were centuries ahead of their time (although, many framers were not Christian).

They are two separate things. Believing in Christianity and believing you have the right to shove it down others throats.

red Not every educational policy has evidence for and against efficacy. Educational policy has a dogma all of it's own. The bias towards 'early intervention' is an example for this, as intervention tends to be so early there is insufficient evidence to support actions.

So I would let you fight (as per your rights within the law) to try to change the law, in this country, regarding the provision of Christian worship in schools but would not get involved myself.

you aren't "letting" me do anything. I (only barely thankfully) have that right here.

Well, I regard that as plain wrong. I wouldn't expect you to fight the fight, but certainly support it, as you yourself admit that you wouldn't want to be in position.

red Christian belief includes the belief that expletive are free to believe as they do. Any 'shoving down throats' would be futile. You cannot force true faith.

People not expletive. Typo / strange auto correct.