The Atheism Mega-Thread

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Sorry does the second sentence improve things much?

It changes things significantly. It stops being a point about how enlightened fascists are, and starts being a point about how much the rest of us have lost the plot.

 

[silkyman]

The point is within your grasp Silky.

Scientology is a different kettle of fish anyway but the point is that race and religion are different things.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

I think it's hard to separate the two. Islam isn't simply an ideology - it's more complex than that; it's a diverse and often disparate collection of beliefs and customs that range from Hui Chinese to Nation of Islam types in the US. You'd be hard-pressed to find many beliefs or customs that are held in common across everyone.

If it is an ideology, you can't really oppose one without opposing the other. If I'm against fascism, I have to be against fascists. And if I think that ideology is the biggest threat to Western Civilisation surely it stands to reason that I'm actively hostile to the people who hold those views, unless you think people are coerced or brainwashed into that particular point of view.

But if it's not, you still can't really separate the two. If it's a set of customs and beliefs, it's hard to be against that set of customs and beliefs without being against the people for whom those customs and beliefs are important.

There are obviously principles that are important to hold that sometimes put you in conflict with some traditional interpretations of Islam, but I think it's very important to distinguish that from being against Islam/Muslims generally, and also apply those principles far widely than to just single out already pretty marginalised groups.

Either way, it's clear that there's a correlation between more people being hostile to Islam as an ideology and people who look like they might be Muslim - whatever their religion, if any - being attacked or abused on the streets, put under surveillance by the police or harassed at airport security.

So you'd hope the anti-Islam-as-an-ideology would be a bit more careful with their words, wouldn't you? If I was Richard Dawkins/Sam Harris and thought there was even a faint possibility that my own rhetoric could have inspired this shooting, I would dramatically reassess the statements I've made. I really hope they're all doing that, and when people accuse them of Islamophobia in future, their first respose is "shit, where?" rather than reflexive denial.

I don't see that this need be the case. We surely don't perceive Muslims as a homogeneous block, but rather as a diverse group of people with disparate views. If people experience the faith in a range of different ways then they're surely not going to be united in their response to any criticism. You speak of marginalised groups but what of the marginalised people in Muslim communities? The majority of Muslim countries criminalise apostasy, the majority criminalise homosexuality, the majority restrict women's rights in some meaningful way. Do those people not deserve a voice?

I agree that one should be obliged to consider how one's comments might be interpreted, how they might impact upon people, but I don't think anyone should refrain from criticising a belief system - be it Islam, Christianity, Pastafarianism - just because it might offend some people's sensibilities.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

I agree that one should be obliged to consider how one's comments might be interpreted, how they might impact upon people, but I don't think anyone should refrain from criticising a belief system - be it Islam, Christianity, Pastafarianism - just because it might offend some people's sensibilities.

You wouldn't dare.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

I don't see that this need be the case. We surely don't perceive Muslims as a homogeneous block, but rather as a diverse group of people with disparate views. If people experience the faith in a range of different ways then they're surely not going to be united in their response to any criticism. You speak of marginalised groups but what of the marginalised people in Muslim communities? The majority of Muslim countries criminalise apostasy, the majority criminalise homosexuality, the majority restrict women's rights in some meaningful way. Do those people not deserve a voice?

Course they do but they're incredibly poorly served by white, western men with little or no knowledge of the societies involved saying that it's all the fault of the Qu'ran. For a start, it's a ludicrously simplistic interpretation of the problems, often done without even the most rudimentary fact-checking. Secondly, it stigmatises Muslims in this country because it inevitably becomes "Islam persecutes gay people" rather than (e.g.) Pakistan persecutes gay people. Most importantly, it instrumentalises LGBT people in places like Pakistan to make an anti-Islam point rather than listening to their experiences.

We often hear that Israel "has gay rights" while Palestine does not. But gay Palestinians are routinely blackmailed by the IDF into informing.

If we want to give oppressed groups in Muslim countries a voice, listen to the voices they're already using instead of letting Dawkins and Harris, with their deeply questionable understanding or racism, colonialism and sexism speak over them. If the Dawkins/Harris etc devoted the same level of effort fighting for the rights of Pakistanis of all sexualities not to be terrorised by drone strikes, for example - something them and their followers have a bit more direct influence over - we might be getting somewhere.

This is a very interesting read, largely pretty tangential to the discussion but worth a read nonetheless: http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/3560/gay-rights-as-human-rights_pinkwashing-homonationa

"They show us that the language of gay rights in the Arab world is a double bind: we must use it in order to achieve restitution from very real, and very immediate oppression, but as we use this language it mobilizes us in a struggle to transform questions of social, political, and economic justice into claims of discrimination. This discrimination, in turn, can only be addressed by nation states or by international political bodies that are actively involved in oppressing our peoples, our families and loved ones, and the parts of us that not captured by the LGBTQ paradigm."

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

Yes, but if you don't enjoy any legal protection, if the very subject of homosexuality is taboo and you don't have access to any support networks, if you experience harassment and intimidation and live in fear of physical violence then how much of a voice are you realistically going to have? Because this is the reality for some people. So I think to some extent any sort of Western acknowledgement of the difficulties LGBT people face beyond our shores is a positive thing, no matter how that discussion is framed (acknowledging that religion is a barrier to tolerance is hardly CONTROVERSIAL). Our governments and our multinationals have interests in some of the countries that criminalise homosexuality. If enough pressure is applied to them they can use what leverage they have - be it political or economic* - to get those governments to rethink their attitudes or legislation. I think this is growing increasingly important now that gay rights is being used as a bit of a political weapon, with an increasing number of countries instituting homophobic laws or practices, either because they want to distract attention from economic or political mismanagement or because they want to set themselves in opposition to the West.

*of course, this often isn't an appropriate approach, sometimes it'll often be better to channel funding into local support structures and rights groups on the ground

Think I may well have gone off on a bit of a tangent here but FUCK IT

You wouldn't dare.

You're right, I really wouldn't. I have too much love for His noodly appendages

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

Oh, and I recognise I didn't really address all your points there, but suffice to say that shifting Western geopolitical goals, some of which are shared by Arab nations, is not an easy task. Given that a lot of Middle Eastern governments are complicit in Western acts of aggression I'm not sure how well that narrative holds together?

 

[Womble98]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-32355757

Any thoughts?

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

I think most people here agree that faith schools shouldn't exist.

 

[Womble98]

I think most people here agree that faith schools shouldn't exist.

Why?

Let me ask, if you take the premise that there exists a faith school of an imaginary religion. This religion teaches what we would all agree to be positive values; e.g. forgiveness, kindness, etc.

This religion has a positive impact on society. Would you accept a faith school like this?

 

[Alty]

Schools should be teaching you to think critically. Not to see the world through a Catholic/Muslim/Jewish lens.

Faith schools are also problematic in that they divide communities, particularly in highly deprived areas where there's already limited interaction between different ethnicities in the workplace. Separating people during childhood perpetuates the problem.

Strip them all of their funding. Most will die.

 

[Womble98]

Schools should be teaching you to think critically. Not to see the world through a Catholic/Muslim/Jewish lens.

Faith schools are also problematic in that they divide communities, particularly in highly deprived areas where there's already limited interaction between different ethnicities in the workplace. Separating people during childhood perpetuates the problem.

Strip them all of their funding. Most will die.

Did you attend a faith school?

 

[Alty]

Did you attend a faith school?

Nope.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Why?

Let me ask, if you take the premise that there exists a faith school of an imaginary religion. This religion teaches what we would all agree to be positive values; e.g. forgiveness, kindness, etc.

This religion has a positive impact on society. Would you accept a faith school like this?

How could you legislate to only allow this type of magical faith school to exist though? And I say magical, because I don't think segregating kids based on religion is likely to have a positive impact on society no matter how nice the teachings are.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

Why?

Let me ask, if you take the premise that there exists a faith school of an imaginary religion. This religion teaches what we would all agree to be positive values; e.g. forgiveness, kindness, etc.

This religion has a positive impact on society. Would you accept a faith school like this?

Too fanciful an idea to contemplate tbh

 

[silkyman]

Why?

Let me ask, if you take the premise that there exists a faith school of an imaginary religion. This religion teaches what we would all agree to be positive values; e.g. forgiveness, kindness, etc.

This religion has a positive impact on society. Would you accept a faith school like this?

Why does it have to be a religion to promote those values?

 

[Womble98]

Nope.

How do you know faith schools don't teach you think critically then?

Whilst this is anecdotal at best, having (and still currently) attended one, I know from experience that I have been taught by my school to "think critically". In RS classes criticism of religion and in particular, Catholicism, is far more common than praise of it.

Catholics or Christians as a demographic hardly are separated from the rest of society. About half my friends are from Catholic backgrounds, the rest aren't. I would say with confidence though that the majority of people in my sixth form would not class themselves as Catholic, myself included. They were brought up Catholic, but would identify as atheist or agnostic.

I accept the criticism with regards to dividing communities, in some cases, it can be a bad thing but I think it depends on the religion. Orthodox Jewish schools or Muslim only schools are going to be far more divisive than Catholic ones. In my school, every major ethnicity is represented. There are European (Polish French, Spanish, Italian, Irish) African (Egpytian, Eritrean, Nigerian, Ghanaian) and Asian (Iraqi, Indian, Chinese, Korean) kids. That is a pretty diverse range of people. Moreover, Catholics or Christians are far less exclusive. Whilst Muslims and Orthodox Jews stick to themselves, Christians tend not to.

What you do get at my faith school which you will not get in your standard comprehensive is things like Soup Kitchen programs, where kids volunteer to help out at the weekends to run soup kitchens in Victoria, or to raise money for soup kitchen charities. On a daily basis, messages such as "Help others" are driven into people, whereas more controversial Church teachings are ignored.

Yes, some faith schools are divisive and cause problems. Yet I believe the education that some faith schools give( and my faith school which incidentally is the one in the article) is one that should be encouraged, especially when the education standard is so high.

 

[Womble98]

How could you legislate to only allow this type of magical faith school to exist? And I say magical, because I don't think segregating kids based on religion is likely to have a positive impact on society no matter how nice the teachings are.

By correct and decent OFSTedding and inspecting. A school is teaching unacceptable values as fact; fails ofsted. In my school, in religious ed. lessons, it has always been "Christians believe this is so", instead of "this is so". The difference is huge.

Why does it have to be a religion to promote those values?

It doesn't have to be, but when it is a religion doing so, the basis for acting morally is much stronger; "Our God says we should be kind; we must be kind".
I don't see many atheists setting up Soup kitchens, feeding the homeless in London. Seriously, next time you are here, ask a homeless guy, "Where do you go for shelter/food/soup" etc, he will likely respond that he goes to a Church of some kind. It would be great if more non-religious groups did things like this but they don't.

 

[Alty]

How do you know faith schools don't teach you think critically then?

Whilst this is anecdotal at best, having (and still currently) attended one, I know from experience that I have been taught by my school to "think critically". In RS classes criticism of religion and in particular, Catholicism, is far more common than praise of it.

Catholics or Christians as a demographic hardly are separated from the rest of society. About half my friends are from Catholic backgrounds, the rest aren't. I would say with confidence though that the majority of people in my sixth form would not class themselves as Catholic, myself included. They were brought up Catholic, but would identify as atheist or agnostic.

I accept the criticism with regards to dividing communities, in some cases, it can be a bad thing but I think it depends on the religion. Orthodox Jewish schools or Muslim only schools are going to be far more divisive than Catholic ones. In my school, every major ethnicity is represented. There are European (Polish French, Spanish, Italian, Irish) African (Egpytian, Eritrean, Nigerian, Ghanaian) and Asian (Iraqi, Indian, Chinese, Korean) kids. That is a pretty diverse range of people. Moreover, Catholics or Christians are far less exclusive. Whilst Muslims and Orthodox Jews stick to themselves, Christians tend not to.

What you do get at my faith school which you will not get in your standard comprehensive is things like Soup Kitchen programs, where kids volunteer to help out at the weekends to run soup kitchens in Victoria, or to raise money for soup kitchen charities. On a daily basis, messages such as "Help others" are driven into people, whereas more controversial Church teachings are ignored.

Yes, some faith schools are divisive and cause problems. Yet I believe the education that some faith schools give( and my faith school which incidentally is the one in the article) is one that should be encouraged, especially when the education standard is so high.

I don't accept I have to have attended a faith school to have a view on them.

I've never claimed everyone who goes to a Catholic school will come out a rabid papist counting his rosary beads every two seconds. But what's the point in a religious education if you're supposed to be encouraging children to think critically and come to their own conclusions? Most Catholic schools force their pupils to go to church regularly. That's hardly giving them space to develop their own ideas, is it?

The idea that only faith schools can encourage community mindedness and charitable activities is borderline offensive, frankly.

 

[Womble98]

I don't accept I have to have attended a faith school to have a view on them.

I've never claimed everyone who goes to a Catholic school will come out a rabid papist counting his rosary beads every two seconds. But what's the point in a religious education if you're supposed to be encouraging children to think critically and come to their own conclusions? Most Catholic schools force their pupils to go to church regularly. That's hardly giving them space to develop their own ideas, is it?

The idea that only faith schools can encourage community mindedness and charitable activities is borderline offensive, frankly.

Most Catholic schools force their pupils to go to Church regularly? What a load of bollocks! Yep, they come round every kids house dragging him to church each Sunday, all the kids in a big long row with a chain round their neck etc etc. Most retarded thing I have read all week and I read Katie Hopkins' article the other day. How exactly can a school force someone to attend Church regularly?
The idea of Catholic education is to educate kids from Catholic families, and yes, ideally every kid will remain Catholic, it would be pointless to run a Catholic school without that aim. Yet a large part of Catholic teaching is that once someone has been Confirmed, that they will make their own independent choice, freely. You do realise, religious people believe that what they have done is thought critically and come to the conclusion that God is real. They don't think that they have ignored all the evidence and are just wasting their time. Thus, they present the evidence and arguments with the belief that whoever is being taught will look at them logically and decide, I think this makes sense, and thus I am going to abide by its teachings.

Surely you agree though that someone (or a school) who believes his/her God has told them to do something is far more likely to do said thing with conviction and more effort than someone who has been told to do it for the sake of it?

 

[silkyman]

By correct and decent OFSTedding and inspecting. A school is teaching unacceptable values as fact; fails ofsted. In my school, in religious ed. lessons, it has always been "Christians believe this is so", instead of "this is so". The difference is huge.


It doesn't have to be, but when it is a religion doing so, the basis for acting morally is much stronger; "Our God says we should be kind; we must be kind".

I don't see many atheists setting up Soup kitchens, feeding the homeless in London. Seriously, next time you are here, ask a homeless guy, "Where do you go for shelter/food/soup" etc, he will likely respond that he goes to a Church of some kind. It would be great if more non-religious groups did things like this but they don't.

Well, first off that makes the rather glib (and offensive) presumption that any religion is inherently morally better than no religion. Some of the biggest c*** I've ever met have been devout Christians. As an atheist, I try to be a decent chap because it's the right thing to do. A Christian who is 'only' kind and decent because they are afraid of some post death punishment, is somehow inherently a more moral person?

As for the charity angle. There are plenty of secular charities, but, having not really thought about it, my feeling is that the main difference between religion and atheism is infrastructure. We don't meet up once a week at atheist church. There aren't hundreds of years of buildings and investment in atheism to have the same base for things like that. A church hall is a useful tool if you want to have a soup kitchen. Give atheism a few centuries of being even accepted (blasphemy was illegal until 2008) and it might be able to match the establishment. But until someone sets up a central atheist HQ and starts tithing, it's probably not going to be an easy journey.

 

[silkyman]

Most Catholic schools force their pupils to go to Church regularly? What a load of bollocks! Yep, they come round every kids house dragging him to church each Sunday, all the kids in a big long row with a chain round their neck etc etc. Most retarded thing I have read all week and I read Katie Hopkins' article the other day. How exactly can a school force someone to attend Church regularly?
The idea of Catholic education is to educate kids from Catholic families, and yes, ideally every kid will remain Catholic, it would be pointless to run a Catholic school without that aim. Yet a large part of Catholic teaching is that once someone has been Confirmed, that they will make their own independent choice, freely. You do realise, religious people believe that what they have done is thought critically and come to the conclusion that God is real. They don't think that they have ignored all the evidence and are just wasting their time. Thus, they present the evidence and arguments with the belief that whoever is being taught will look at them logically and decide, I think this makes sense, and thus I am going to abide by its teachings.

Surely you agree though that someone (or a school) who believes his/her God has told them to do something is far more likely to do said thing with conviction and more effort than someone who has been told to do it for the sake of it?

They just call it 'assembly'

And when you are told something is true since birth, you've never been given the chance to 'think critically'.

Without any outside influence, most kids would grow up believing in Father Christmas.

 

[Alty]

Most Catholic schools force their pupils to go to Church regularly? What a load of bollocks! Yep, they come round every kids house dragging him to church each Sunday, all the kids in a big long row with a chain round their neck etc etc. Most retarded thing I have read all week and I read Katie Hopkins' article the other day. How exactly can a school force someone to attend Church regularly?
The idea of Catholic education is to educate kids from Catholic families, and yes, ideally every kid will remain Catholic, it would be pointless to run a Catholic school without that aim. Yet a large part of Catholic teaching is that once someone has been Confirmed, that they will make their own independent choice, freely. You do realise, religious people believe that what they have done is thought critically and come to the conclusion that God is real. They don't think that they have ignored all the evidence and are just wasting their time. Thus, they present the evidence and arguments with the belief that whoever is being taught will look at them logically and decide, I think this makes sense, and thus I am going to abide by its teachings.

Surely you agree though that someone (or a school) who believes his/her God has told them to do something is far more likely to do said thing with conviction and more effort than someone who has been told to do it for the sake of it?

Maybe not in Southwest London but they certainly did in Trafford when I was at school there. My friends said they regularly had to think up something to tell the priest at confession despite really not wanting to go.

If your second point is supposed to convince me that a Catholic education encourages critical-thinking and a rounded education I'm afraid it's backfired spectacularly. God hasn't told anyone to do anything ever FFS.

 

[Womble98]

Well, first off that makes the rather glib (and offensive) presumption that any religion is inherently morally better than no religion. Some of the biggest c*** I've ever met have been devout Christians. As an atheist, I try to be a decent chap because it's the right thing to do. A Christian who is 'only' kind and decent because they are afraid of some post death punishment, is somehow inherently a more moral person?

As for the charity angle. There are plenty of secular charities, but, having not really thought about it, my feeling is that the main difference between religion and atheism is infrastructure. We don't meet up once a week at atheist church. There aren't hundreds of years of buildings and investment in atheism to have the same base for things like that. A church hall is a useful tool if you want to have a soup kitchen. Give atheism a few centuries of being even accepted (blasphemy was illegal until 2008) and it might be able to match the establishment. But until someone sets up a central atheist HQ and starts tithing, it's probably not going to be an easy journey.

Oh, I 100% agree with your first sentences. They are often referred to as "candlestick Catholics", who at Mass will insist the candles are the right length but will ignore the homeless man in the Church doorstep. I agree that religion has many faults, I am agnostic myself. However as I said previously, the controversial, divisive and backwards teachings of the Church such as those on gay marriage, homosexuality, and contraception are challenged and that is accepted. They are not taught as fact, and instead it is a case of "Catholics believe this is so" as I earlier mentioned.
If your premise is correct with regards to those who are only good because they fear death, I would still argue that a Christian who is only kind and decent because their God tells them to be is better than an atheist who is not kind and good.
I dispute the premise though. The idea that people think like that; I must help this man otherwise I am going to go to hell is outdated. It is a Medieval concept, and whilst it might be subconsciously there, it isn't the primary motivation.

I probably agree with your second paragraph, but there will never be a central atheist HQ. Atheism isn't a belief structure, it is a lack of belief. Atheism isn't something that unites people in the same way religion does.



Alty, your ability to read is somewhat lacking today? Where did I say that God has told anyone anything? I mentioned numerous times that I do not agree with Catholic beliefs.

Some people believe that God has said stuff through scripture. Agreed?

I am not going to argue that they are correct as I do not think they are. Strawman much.

If you mean a school mass by that, then yes, those happen, but once a term, and no one can be forced to go to confession. The Education department would kick up a huge storm, as well as the BHA.

 

[Alty]

You're claiming that people will do things with more conviction if they believe, or if the people encouraging them to do it believe, that God has decreed said thing should be done.

Based on statements like that, how am I supposed to take the positive case for religious schools seriously? By that logic we'd all support a big push for homeopathy on the NHS. Nonsense.

 

[Womble98]

You're claiming that people will do things with more conviction if they believe, or if the people encouraging them to do it believe, that God has decreed said thing should be done.

Based on statements like that, how am I supposed to take the positive case for religious schools seriously? By that logic we'd all support a big push for homeopathy on the NHS. Nonsense.

It is Catholic teachers/ staff who run these programmes. If they did not believe in God, it is questionable whether they would do it. I don't see how you can dispute that if someone believes God has told them to do something they are far more likely to do it with conviction. They ensure things are done properly, to the highest standard.

Those actually helping out may not necessarily believe themselves, but having been taught from a young age that these kind of things are right, they are happy to help out. You can dispute this all you want but I am of the view that someone who has a liberal Catholic upbringing is far more inclined to do acts of charity than someone with no knowledge of God whatsoever.

I really don't understand what link it has to homeopathy.

 

[silkyman]

Belief in something that is based solely on faith rather than evidence?

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

By correct and decent OFSTedding and inspecting. A school is teaching unacceptable values as fact; fails ofsted. In my school, in religious ed. lessons, it has always been "Christians believe this is so", instead of "this is so". The difference is huge.

I don't see how OFSTED could guarantee such distinctions and I don't see any good reason why they should be expected to. It would be much simpler and more productive to leave religious indoctrination to the parents. If all the teachings at your religious school amount to is a secular education as you describe, then in what sense is it a religious school at all? Because it can discriminate against non-Christians? Seems an odd thing to want to preserve.

I don't see many atheists setting up Soup kitchens, feeding the homeless in London. Seriously, next time you are here, ask a homeless guy, "Where do you go for shelter/food/soup" etc, he will likely respond that he goes to a Church of some kind. It would be great if more non-religious groups did things like this but they don't.

I'm pretty sure that most of the largest charities in the world are secular, as is FareShare UK. The difference of course is that secular charities are not predatory in the way that Christian ones often are. Secular workers are not pestering vulnerable people to convert, some even going so far as to coerce people into praying before they get their food...

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

I'd like to echo the view, already expressed by several posters, that faith schools are an inherently bad idea - I really don't think any school with a religious character should be in receipt of state funding. I think it deeply problematic that such schools are able to promote or instil religious values in children at a formative stage of their development and I think it wrong that they should have the ability to select pupils on the basis of a parents' religious background. This discriminates against and limits the choices of parents who don't share the faith of the local school, or don't want their child to be educated in such an environment. It's fairly well established that religious schools, whether by accident or design, also tend to discriminate along socio-economic lines. And of course the fact that they are permitted to discriminate when it comes to admissions and employment puts them out of step with the sort of equality legislation that other state funded schools are expected to adhere to. Individual schools may excel in a number of ways but I don't see how faith schools as a whole can ever really be considered anything other than divisive and detrimental to social cohesion.

Whilst this is anecdotal at best, having (and still currently) attended one, I know from experience that I have been taught by my school to "think critically". In RS classes criticism of religion and in particular, Catholicism, is far more common than praise of it.

Unfortunately, it's difficult to know whether this experience is typical. Faith schools are permitted to pursue their own RE/RS syllabus, the teaching of which is not specifically inspected by Ofsted. They're also, rather worryingly, free to teach PSHE from a religious perspective if they so wish.

 

[Jonny12]

Faith school's shouldn't be a thing. Keep all religious beliefs out of the class room and into churches and the home. I find it crazy that kids still have to sing hymns and pray to god from such a young age in this day and age, let them think and discover for themselves and not shove it down their throats in a place that is meant to be a place of learning, not faith. Teach RE sure, learn about the religions, but don't force them on the kids.

Religious schools don't add anything positive to our schooling systems.