AIBU for not wanting my MIL to discuss Jesus and heaven with my 5 year old?

[Spearshake]

I was just having breakfast with my 5 year old son and he asked me, 'do only people who love Jesus go to heaven?; I asked him who told you that.
Unfortunately, my tone must have been a bit sharp (hey, first thing in the morning) so he said, 'I don't know'

(I know it's his grandma though (my MIL) because she has been staying with us for the last week and we haven't been in contact with anyone else who is likely to make such comments) Unless he has been on the evangelical channels again

The problem is that I am an atheist, so I have a tough time with such discussions. He asked me what God is the other day, and I asked him to wait until his father gets home and he can answer (he was brought up more religiously than me)

Any ideas from fellow mumsnetters of a similar religious (or non-) bent on how to deal with such ideas would be most welcome.

Thank you!

Before you tell me God is immeasurable, you must first show me your actual evidence that god exists

I don't believe there is any 'evidence' of God in the way you're suggesting, any more than there is evidence for the number 3. Any belief system that tries to find evidence for God is working on the 'God of the gaps' basis and is doomed to fail due to the relentless march of science. Belief in God is not so much about the 'how', but more about the 'why'... The lack of answers to the 'why' question beyond a nihilistic 'there is no purpose' is atheism's biggest flaw, and one that seems to grate against our human nature.

The thing is, deists tend to think the arguments are insults...so we can't really win. Arguing logic, evidence, reason are all "arrogance" apparently

Ah yes, atheists lack purpose and depth and spirituality. Our lives are a meaningless void, because we don't believe in a religion.

I don't believe there is any 'evidence' of God in the way you're suggesting, any more than there is evidence for the number 3

Fine..so there's not the slightest reason for anyone to believe in god. I agree.

No evidence for the number 3? The number 3 is not a thing, it's a concept. There is evidence that the concept of 3 is useful - in no way is this analogous to any god.

Any belief system that tries to find evidence for God is working on the 'God of the gaps' basis and is doomed to fail due to the relentless march of science

This makes no sense whatsoever. If a claim is made ("God exists") then that claim should be investigated. The evidence put forward for it should be analysed. To suggest it's a waste of time because science is continually moving forward is ridiculous. Science is not the problem, the quality of the evidence is.

Belief in God is not so much about the 'how', but more about the 'why'... Again...according to who? You? How and what must be determined long before why. Without the first two, why is just fantasy, anchored in nothing.

The lack of answers to the 'why' question beyond a nihilistic 'there is no purpose' is atheism's biggest flaw, and one that seems to grate against our human nature Atheism has no flaw...it's merely a response to someone else's claim. It can't answer any questions because it's not a positive claim in itself.

Seriously????? Where do I even start. How do they reach the conclusion that the universe's existence is down to god without one shred of evidence!

Try reading the article and understanding it rather than extract a sliver of it and dismiss it because you've not understood the definition of God. The cosmological argument for God presented there may be flawed but major philosophical and theological minds (far greater than ours) over the centuries and to the present day recognise it's power. The fact you dismiss it so lightly shows you aren't even trying to understand it....

But there isn't any big "purpose" Flash. U.S. arrogant humans struggle with that but look at nature in the wider context - I'm sure squirrels, lions, lizards, etc aren't all navel gazing and seeking a purpose. We're born, we live, we die. It's the relationships we enjoy and the love we share that gives live it's purpose.

The thing is, deists tend to think the arguments are insults...so we can't really win. Arguing logic, evidence, reason are all "arrogance" apparently

Yep.

Flash, don't be so patronising. I did read the article and thought it was utter crap. I'm an intelligent woman, lack of understanding on my part wasn't the problem.

It can't answer any questions because it's not a positive claim in itself.

And that is precisely atheism's weakness. It's like the work colleague who always puts down others' attempts to do things in the office whilst never making a positive contribution!

To a previous comment, I agree the Catholic Church should and must take responsibility for the terrible abuses that were allowed to happen. Of course they should. I am with you on that and said so in my previous comment. Everyone, priests, bishops, no matter how high up, especially if they are high up, who covered up abuses should be in prison. The Church should acknowledge every victim and make sure it never happens again. I am very angry that children's lives were destroyed by these monsters and their equally evil and guilty enablers.

To the person insisting that evil people who call themselves Catholics and by your logic, Muslim too, right? You want to be consistent in your logic, don't you? are doing evil acts because of their religion, because that's what you're inferring, that there's a connection, is very offensive. Atheists have murdered people too. Does that mean the atheist mindset is evil? I don't judge all people in a group on the actions of some. An evil person can twist anything to justify murder or abuse or whatever it is they have an evil desire to do. Lumping whole groups of people, of a religion, or any group of people, into categories of evil or whatever, is a bigoted mindset and is very disturbing.

Of course the one thing that you have not considered, Flash is that, indeed, there may be no purpose.

To assume that we're wrong, and "atheism flawed" is circular reasoning at it's finest.

What's your evidence that there is a "purpose" - and what does that even mean?

And that is precisely atheism's weakness. It's like the work colleague who always puts down others' attempts to do things in the office whilst never making a positive contribution!

Huh????

I feel like Alice in Wonderland! None of this makes sense.

Atheism's weakness is for not being something that it's not!

We do make a positive contribution - it's just that you don't want to hear. You don't like the idea of what we say, dismiss it for no good reason, and then accuse us of not making a contribution.

There is no god.
When you die, you will cease.
The universe is mysterious and both of the above positions may not be true, but that's what the evidence suggests currently.

How is that not a contribution?

Twunk & Lemon, what is a win in this sort of argument?

But there isn't any big "purpose" Flash.

Maybe there is, maybe there isn't.... What evidence do you have to say there isn't! Arrogant surely to say you know there isn't.... I'm not saying I can prove there is purpose, but unless someone can prove otherwise I'm going to live as though there is one as the alternative is one of nihilistic pointlessness which is at odds with the core of who we are as people.

When you die, you will cease.

I agree with this, on an individual sense at least. Doesn't mean atheism follows

Christians on the thread: do you think it necessary to describe yourself as atheist with regard to all the many many gods you don't believe in?

Not sure I understand Dione I wasn't talking about winning the argument as well...that seems to be an unstoppable force/immovable object scenario. I meant in the context of being "respectful" to deists.

Maybe there is, maybe there isn't.... What evidence do you have to say there isn't!

Aggggggh. Shifting the burden of proof again!

The person who makes the positive claim "There's a purpose!" is the only person who can produce the evidence for this.

If I reject the notion I am not saying "There is no purpose" I am instead saying, "I reject your claim that there is a purpose until you demonstrate it to me".

What you're doing is saying, "There's a fatal flaw in your thinking atheists...you cannot answer the question, "what is the purpose of life" - which presupposes that a) this is a good question, b) that there is an actual answer and b) that atheists need to answer this question even though atheism says bugger all about purpose/non purpose.

the alternative is one of nihilistic pointlessness which is at odds with the core of who we are as people Well, at odds with the core of you, maybe. Not me. I have not the slightest problem believing the universe/life is purposeless. Makes perfect sense to me.

I agree with this, on an individual sense at least. Doesn't mean atheism follows

No. But it usually does in practice.

[Atheism is] like the work colleague who always puts down others' attempts to do things in the office whilst never making a positive contribution!

Religion, then, is like the person saying "The work I've done is invisible, intangible, unquantifiable and unknowable. But I definitely did it and it exists and you have to prove it doesn't."

Frankly I think we'd all react in line with the atheist you'd outlined.

so the argument goes

There is no god

• well there is! Prove there isn't. Anyway there must be because why do we exist otherwise!

There is no heaven

• well there is! Prove there isn't. Anyway there must be because why do we exist otherwise!

The thing is the deists think that arguments are insults...so we can't really win.

What are you hoping to win?

What is a win for you in this scenario?

Seriously????? Where do I even start. How do they reach the conclusion that the universe's existence is down to god without one shred of evidence!

This is a philosophical argument. Has nothing to do with evidence (unless you use it to question one of the premises).

Happy to see the link to william lane craig above. He makes mince meat of most atheists' arguments, plus he makes a positive case for God as well.

John Lennox is another one to look up. I remember a good debate he had wwith Dawkins.

This is a philosophical argument

No, it's not. It's a scientific consideration. Sitting around thinking about it won't achieve anything.

WLC....Everything that begins to exist has a cause etc....an argument that has been debunked over and over.

Unfortunately, not everything that begins to exist has a cause (as any physicist can explain)...so there goes WLC's one and only argument. Impressive only to people who don't understand science.

Oh...and children suffering in life is fine since they'll be OK when they are dead and in Heaven. Personally, I find that disgusting, but no doubt it impresses you.