I don't know anything about religious education in England, but I'm going to guess that atheism isn't the only philosophy being given short shrift. I'd also not be very surprised if, when religious education is taught as an A Level, atheism still isn't presented the way we might like it to be. I'd like to learn more about what you are being taught, and would appreciate any information you can share with me.

Since you have no choice about whether or not to take this class, you might want to consider treating it as an opportunity. The more you now about religion, the more you will understand where non-atheists are coming from. This will help you in future dealings with theists. If the classroom is not an appropriate place for debate on the subject, perhaps you could use the class as a touchstone for conversations about atheism with your classmates. Those who are religious may benefit from discussing their beliefs in this way. Those who are atheists will be reminded that they aren't alone in not having faith in this material, and if the discussions are intelligent and respectful those overhearing may look upon atheism favorably and consider that you may be correct.

From my perspective, religion is incredibly interesting. Granted, I did not attend a school where we were forced to treat it as truth. Even so, I find the historical development of religious ideas fascinating in the same way that I find the modern spread of urban legends fascinating. Splits in various religious groups, how religious documents developed, different interpretations of the same material -- it can all be quite interesting.

Now, none of this mitigates the fact that you are being forced to take a class in religion. Unless the class is purely informational (as opposed to devotional), I think that's a travesty. But unless you are up to the work of protesting the system, your best bet is to try and make a silk purse out of this sow's ear. Hopefully, as atheism and tolerant theism gain ground, this kind of class will just fade away.

I think what we have here is a difference in philosophy. Despite the joke on which this site's home page is based, I do not make it a goal to convert people to atheism (and I don't even like using the word "convert" in that context -- it sounds too religious). Instead, my goal is to help people understand atheism and discuss religious issues in a calm, rational manner, and to examine their own beliefs to make sure they make sense.

For this reason, when someone spews hellfire at me, I don't get defensive or start spewing reason back at them. Instead, I try to politely explain that I understand their position but disagree with it. Far more often than not in my experience, this turns a rant into a conversation.

Another think I try to keep in mind is that there are usually more than two people in any discussion. If someone is berating me for being an atheist, there are usually other people around who are interested to see what will happen next -- be these other guests at a party or passersby on the street. Even if I can't win over the person ranting, I can at least show those who might be listening that the atheist is behaving better and making more sense than the religious person. I think that this helps atheists everywhere, because it plays against stereotype and because the more people who think of atheists in a positive way, the more people might consider it as a possible philosophy.

I believe that there are some people who are going to be religious no matter how many reasons you can give them for being otherwise. It's just a part of their makeup, and it's possible that they are even better off than they would be as atheists. I'm not going to "convert" these people, but what I can do is try and make sure that they don't see atheists as evil or immoral. I think that fighting this bias is even more important than trying to increase the number of atheists, because so long as that bias is there atheists will continue to be treated as second-class citizens by some, and biased people will be resistant to examining their faith because they are afraid of becoming "like those atheists."

I have heard from atheist parents living in small communities whose children have nobody to play with because there are no other atheist children, and the religious parents won't let their child associate with an atheist. I'd rather work on getting rid of that bias so that atheist and the theist children can play together than try to badger people out of their beliefs or look down on those who do not agree with me (not that I'm saying you do this).

I have so much confidence in my philosophy that I believe that once the biases against atheists and against self-examination are eliminated, atheism will spread itself.

I guessed that you are an atheist.

In fact, though I don't mean this to sound as harsh as it does, I feel that letters like yours are part of the reason that theists have such a resistance to discussion with atheists. You come across as very condescending as self congratulating. Your statement that the correspondent has "no working knowledge of science" sounds nasty both because it is untrue (much of her knowledge of science is just very basic and outdated) and because it ignores the fact that, despite her ignorance on this topic, she is apparently making a sincere effort to increase her knowledge.

I agree with most of your points about the science of the correspondent -- in fact, I pointed out most of these things in my responses. Other inaccuracies I didn't think worth pointing out as they were not germane to the conversation. Our disagreement about Stephen Hawking may be one of vocabulary, in that he speaks of a finite unbounded space in which our universe exists, and that space can also be referred to as the universe. This allows for the big bang to occur within a universe that does not require anything outside of it. The statement "there was no time before the big bang" is also a very complex one, so I'd say that your seemingly condescending statement about her "not knowing that" is misplaced.

My point here is that yes, it's fun to be able to pick apart the arguments of uninformed theists, but that should not be a goal of atheism. Discussions of this sort should be conducted in a way that helps others see why atheism makes sense, not in a way that makes them feel attacked or badgered, or that makes them want to avoid atheists in the future.