"Why we should no longer be cowed by the chattering classes ruling Britain who sneer at Christianity"

[BetsyBoop]

Just thought I'd share I found this a really interesting "Easter essay" in today's Mail.

I'm with Kay on the two meanings of materialism

1. money/comsumerism/possessions etc

1. as used in philosophy to mean all there is in the world is a collection of atoms, there is nothing immaterial, no supernatural, no spirit, no soul, no ESP, no God etc.

I read ANW's article as him using the latter form of materialism, I don't think he was trying to say all atheists are money-grabbing b...ds!

lol

There is the other version that mixes the two and says 'If you give me your money, and say the right collection of bible verses over this small green cloth, then God will give you even more money back again'.

justabout - you can't be a stranger to that meaning of materialism - surely?!

justa, say hi to the Pumpkin for me, He's a bit cross with me right now...

OK I admit I couldn't be arsed to read the article properly because life is too short. But am I missing something very big? Are Jonathan Ross, Jo Brand and Polly Toynbee running the country now? Are they in the cabinet?

Not sure, LittleBella, as I am still recovering from the picture cap in that article:
'Self-satisfied tv personalities like Jo Brand are openly non-believers'

Yours,
an openly non-believer (had no idea I was meant to keep my ungodliness a secret)

Daily Mail with more forward thinking

olliebuck.com/misc/507.htm

KayH: If there were a Great Pumpkin, I would rather imagine him/her it being inclined to give you a cheering pat on the back and say 'Look, I built you to enjoy yourself, value yourself and make the best of your life, not be pushed around by assorted arses who aren't listening to me. And domestic violence perpetrators are pretty high up on my list of folks overdue a good smiting, but you can't get the help in this here pumpkin patch these days...'

But if you use the second meaning of materialist, surely materialist atheist is a tautology?

Yup, that was the word I was too sozzled tired to remember last night.

I hate the phrase 'chattering classes'. So dismissive. More and more people are denying they hold any religious faith and our society reflects that. As it should. Faith is not an effort of will. You can't force yourself to beleive.

I have great sense of the spiritual, if by that you mean (and I do) the feeling that there is more to life than the strictly material. But I am fundamentally atheist. I find the whole premise of belief absurd. Follow the rules if you wish, accept authority if you wish, but don't pretend there is anything more to it than that. No supreme being is ordering things in a way that suits us.

The world is truly amazing and wondrous place. A belief that God made it doesn't make it any more so. In fact perhaps the opposite.

Just read SGB's and Justa's posts. Yes, on further reflection, I am going to reject the nagging fear that the Pumpkin is angry with me, and I shall instead waggle my backside at those who are telling me that.

I have always thought that one of the biggest motivations to people embracing the concept of God is Fear. Fear runs through the bible in shed loads.

I am scared of calling myself an atheist because I am scared I am wrong. But that's not a very noble motivation is it? It's like I am scared of NOT believing in case I miss out on something ( I might like the afterlife, afterall?).

Now that sounds to me very much like a kind of spiritual materialism.

An in-built politeness also makes me shy away from insulting Christians by saying their belief is founded on fairy-tales which is basically what anyone is saying when they call themselves an atheist.

I think I just need some of solidgoldbrass's brass!

Chris, if proclaiming oneself as an atheist is saying that Christian belief is founded on fairy-tales, does that mean that if you proclaim yourself a Christian then you're saying that Hinduism, Islam, Shinto, and Sikhism are founded on fairy-tales?

Believe what you want for your own reasons. If someone gets offended by your own personal beliefs, that's their problem.

Well, I completely agree with that. Whatever you believe, even if 'belief' itself is something you reject, it's a total waste of energy to do so because of what you may be fearing others will think or say.

Actually, revising that - even if 'belief' is a total irrelevance to you (given that many atheists haven't actively rejected something, it just doesn't even enter their life)

I don't understand why some people who have a different belief to others feel the need to ridicule and insult those who have a different belief.

I have a lot of respect for atheists who have looked at different religions and the science etc & decide "there is no God it's all a load of bollocks". It doesn't mean I have to agree with them in order to respect that they made an educated choice which they believe (shouldn't use that word, but can't think of another! ) is best for them. Similarly for those who have done the same & chose to follow a different religion to mine, I still respect them although I may disagree that they are right

Any respect goes out the window as soon as ridicule & insults start...

In the main, with the odd exception, most of the threads on mumsnet are respectful debates, even if they get a bit heated at times & that's the way it should be IMVHO

Betsey"I don't understand why some people who have a different belief to others feel the need to ridicule and insult those who have a different belief.",

So why in your opening post did you recommend
an article entitled "Religion of Hatred" -referring to atheism seems rather hypocritical to me.

Another pile of dreadul old drivel from a 'writer' on the Mail.

He totally misses the point re: atheism / humanism, too.

Fwiw, my take on Christiantiy - and in fact, all religion - is that people have a right to believe in whatever they choose to believe in, whether it is Jehovah, Allah or little blue people from the planet BooBoo - as long as there is a complete separation between Church and State, religion and public life. I suspect that that is enough to satisfy most atheists or non-religious people - the majority of the population, I suspect? - even if not the handful of academics that AN Wilson has obviously got a bee in his bonnet over.

I think that what AN Wilson, and others like him, are really strugging to accept is the loss of power that the Church has in this country. That's the real issue, isn't it? Not enough people believe in Christianity. Not enough people practice it. And who is to 'blame' for that? Certainly not the 'ranting and railing' atheist academics....

interregnum check your facts, I said "interesting" - I did not "recommend" it...

interesting - adjective
arousing curiosity or interest.

recommend - verb
put forward with approval as being suitable for a purpose or role.
(taken from OED)

At the risk of repeating myself, as I've said this a number of times before on this thread:

• I don't agree with everything ANW wrote

• I've explained why the article had a particular resonance with me at this point in my life.

• I put it forward as something to stimulate debate, and it has certainly achieved this!

I'm going to harrumph back to materialism here, as I'm still not happy. Now, I know the two meanings of materialism (go into Pedants' Corner and look how many threads I've killed by obsessive use of online OED) - BUT - the ANW article is very critical and sneering about atheists (nothing quite like the zeal of the re-converted, is there?) and I would bet that his use of materialist is meant to invoke the connotation of the more common use of the word - i.e. unthinking/consumer-driven/selfish/blinkered to wonders, blah blah.

Because if it's not, then it's a pointless tautology, and I'm sure ANW thinks himself a better writer than that.

Oh, it wouldn't surprise me, but in the context of the last few paragraphs, I do think he's using it in the philosophical sense. Yes, he's being obnovious about it; it's clearly meant to be a polemical piece.

But he chucks plenty of brickbats at atheists in the article without needing to read a may-or-may-not meaning into a phrase at the end, tbh.