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!

"Atheists do rage against God, they're constantly blaming him for disasters and wars. If there is no God why do they get so worked up about Him."

I don't get worked up about God. I don't blame him for anything. I do sometimes get worked up at the extremes of behaviour that belief in him sometimes drives his followers to. A completely different thing.

If you'd care to cast your eye back over your various musings, you'll no doubt discover the crap, the pathetic, the childish and so on. I'm sure you're quite right. I'm sure being a pathetic puppet is quite lovely and not hostile at all, as you say, if you're an atheist, not a Christian. Such phraseology seems common currency among that type of believer.

We don't rage against other people's imaginary friends, we rage against the people trying to impose the wishes they imagine their imaginary friends to have on the rest of us.

If you believe in one myth-system (eg Christianity, Islam, astrology) then there will be others, believed in just as devotedly, by other gullible idiots people. Some of their myths will directly contradict yours (though most myth systems are broadly similar - some sort of how-the-world-was-made story, somé sort of life-and-death cycle with broadly agricultural roots, and a set of rules that broadly suit the area where the myths were made up, and which will be skewed in greater or lesser ways to benefit the class of people who had the power to impose the myth system on everyone else) - are you happy for them to share their myths with you and your DC? For their myths to be discussed in time-wasting fashion during the working day?

Once when I was about 11 my dad got really cross with me when we were talking about ghosts (or something similar) and I used the argument 'anything is possible' to try to establish an equal likelihood of them existing as not.

At the time I felt very hard done by by his evident frustration, but now I think I may ring him to offer a belated apology!

Dora

Was it me that said God is responsible for thoughts?

Nope.

I believe that every human being is responsible for their own thoughts (determinism etc aside).

I believe that a person without their own thoughts is a pathetic puppet. And I am right to.

BUT, being an atheist, I don't believe any such person exists.

Zing does. She believes it of herself and of me. Your "problem" is with her and not me.

Nothing bores me more than a Christian who has soundly lost ground as much as you have and who is reduced to sniping semantics.

We are done.

Once when I was about 11 my dad got really cross with me when we were talking about ghosts (or something similar) and I used the argument 'anything is possible' to try to establish an equal likelihood of them existing as not

But good for 11 year old you for trying, and good for your dad for attempting to teach you critical thinking!

solid, does that not rather suppose that politics is not simply some other sort of myth system. And, of course, the people who believe in it are then not gullible idiots?

lemon, it isn't what you believe that is at issue, it's how you express it. There are plenty of ways of making an argument without being thoroughly unpleasant in the process. I suspect, if you try it, you'll find that your arguments go further.

I might challenge those few Christians on how they can believe their god helped them pay their mortgage one month while allowing hundreds of innocent people to die horribly in a plane crash - but that's not blaming god and you know it.

Although we may have disagreed on this thread, I have to agree I find it offensive when some Christians do this - it's childish at best, callous at worst.

Assuming all Christians think this way is simply incorrect though. The pattern seems to be:

1. Challenge Christians (or other thiests) on something pretty indefensible that some of them do/think/believe
2. Assume that is true of all Christians and necessarily part of a Christian faith
3. Deduce that Christianity is therefore indefensible

Is all politics wrong because political beliefs throughout the ages have engaged in warfare and barbaric brutality, especially in the 20th century (Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot etc.)? Of course not....

Although it doesn't make religion right or sensible, but the argument that "religion has played an important, if not key, part in bad things that have happenned, therefore all religion should be rejected" is a poor application of logical reasoning.

Many are too quick to throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to religion in my opinion.

it wasn't an atheist who first introduced the "puppet" theme- a person of faith asserted that all our thoughts are actually God's.

I am interested, Dora in the fact that you seem to be focussing very much on a couple of disobliging comments- it seems once again that Christians are keen to portray themselves as a persecuted and abused group.

We do rage at theists telling us that this benign deity of theirs has some wonderful, unknowable plan for all those thousands he's apparently killing daily.
This is what I don't understand, and it's what I meant about the hostility shown towards those of us who believe. I don't understand why it bothers people so much. It seems a lot of wasted energy to get het up about IMO. I personally don't go round spouting off my beliefs to people, except when I hear statements like "there is no God " rather than "I don't believe in God"
Don't worry about my article not impressing you, I'd have had heart failure if one of you came on and said it did.

It is known that it is unpredictable - and can only be expressed as a probability. As per quantum mechanics. No "may" about it..

Apologies. I can see that by using "may be random" it was construed as "might be random". Radioactive decay is of course a random event based on probabilities. It doesn't change my argument against the position that just because it is random it therefore can't have a cause, just not one of which we have knowledge.

As for transcendental etc.... That's moving into the realm of philosophy rather than physics, so not really an issue or a conflict.

Somebody else who can put it into words better than i can what I feel. Very interesting. (I think so anyway, but am prepared for it to be torn to shreds as per usual)

isn't it just more of the same that's been mentioned here? We don't know for sure either way, so...

The most plausible god is the minimal one. If you believe in a "prime mover" (one who started the big bang), I have a little sympathy for that. but the problem is that people go on from there and assume all the properties of the Christian/Muslim/whatever god. No. all that follows is someone turned on the ignition. This being could be entirely limited in power (his only power being to kickstart a big bang), an evil monster, and not even sentient, forget omniscient. If all you claim is that there is a prime mover (and that's all the first cause argument really gives you), then all the other properties of your favourite deity are left to be shown.

But, it wasn't a puppet theme, was it

I rather suspect that the Christian term for one who benefits from God's endowments is a person.

The interpretation that the recipient was anything else was an entirely atheist one.

"This is what I don't understand, and it's what I meant about the hostility shown towards those of us who believe."

I don't show hostility towards those who believe, unless that belief impinges on my life. Which, sadly, if we're talking about Christianity, it does.Or unless people of faith minimise and dismiss my desire for a god free life. Which, sadly, Christians often do.

I don't understand why it bothers people so much.

It bothers us because Christians' and Muslims' beliefs in particular aren't benign. If belief was as you seem to be painting (private, inconsequential), we wouldn't care. In fact, there are a lot of ideas out there that are just as crazy but don't affect us, and I really don't speak that often about them. While I think astrology is as crazy and Christianity, astrologers don't take my tax money and force my children to hear about it in state schools.

Although it doesn't make religion right or sensible, but the argument that "religion has played an important, if not key, part in bad things that have happenned, therefore all religion should be rejected" is a poor application of logical reasoning

Who said this?

And, actually, religion has played a VERY key part in many, many, many bad things that have happened. It still does today. This we know. Why would you try to minimise that?

Anyway, my main reason for rejecting religion is that it is quite clearly not true.

It doesn't change my argument against the position that just because it is random it therefore can't have a cause, just not one of which we have knowledge

But that is no argument at all - and I said the same thing myself

Bear in mind we are discussing Craig and his "proof" of god...Kalam.

Everything that begins to exist has a cause
The universe began to exist
The universe therefore had a cause
We call this cause God

I am sincerely astounded that anyone with any passing knowledge of physics would attempt to give this headroom. The problems with it are multiple...not least of which is the flawed opening premise.

Things happen on the quantum level of the universe that are counter intuitive and at odds with our everyday experience. This is what makes it all so very mysterious. You know this, right?

One of those mysterious things are virtual particles that pop in and out of existence at random, cannot be studied because they are not around long enough, can only be observed indirectly and cannot be predicted. It would APPEAR, on current evidence, that there is no cause.

You are doing exactly what the Christians are...assuming there must be a cause because up here we don't experience uncaused events. But you seem to be missing the fact that we're talking about quantum mechanics which seemingly bear little relationship to our own experiences of how things work.

There may be a cause...but because we are in the counter intuitive quantum realm there EQUALLY may not.

Therefore, Craig is beginning with a flawed premise. GIGO...you know what that means, I'm sure, being a physicist.

This, of course, is quite apart from the overall deductive reasoning, special pleading and necessary discussion about how we are defining "universe".

I don't understand why it bothers people so much. It seems a lot of wasted energy to get het up about IMO

You think it's a waste of energy to speak out about something that hurts thousands and thousands of people everyday on our planet?

lemon, it isn't what you believe that is at issue, it's how you express it. There are plenty of ways of making an argument without being thoroughly unpleasant in the process. I suspect, if you try it, you'll find that your arguments go further

You don't get to do this I'm afraid. Who are you to tell another person how they should express themselves? The tone police?

I can't stand this finger-wagging, bossy boots style of discussion. You have no control in this forum and I refuse to allow you any control over me.

The bottom line here is that I have annihilated every argument you have attempted to make...you know it and so do I. Your embarrassment is such that, in a transparent effort to have the last word, you attempt to gain the moral high ground (after spectacularly losing the intellectual one) by telling me off for how I express myself. Because you, of course, have been nothing but polite and friendly, eh? (Balls).

I have not been rude or offensive to anyone. The pathetic puppet was not rude, but a highlight of what that poster was actually saying. A perfectly reasonable discussion tactic.

If there is a nice way to tell someone that a) what they believe in untrue, b) their logic stinks and c) their knowledge of science is non-existent I have yet to find it.

You are a sore loser, Dora and that's all there is to it.

But you are not alone. This is a shamefully common theistic tactic and one that should not be indulged any longer.

The pathetic puppet comment was not rude ....

Perhaps you should spend more time looking for it, then, and less time insulting people on the internet. I think we can manage without the agro.

You think it's a waste of energy to speak out about something that hurts thousands and thousands of people everyday on our planet?
But it isn't God who hurts thousands and thousands of people on our planet every day. That is man. The unspeakable things that man do under the guise of religion, but that isn't Gods doing, man has free will. Mans inhumanity to man, something that's gone on since time began. I would rage against mankind rather than God. There are many religious people who do lots of good, why should they all be tarnished with the same brush. Not all religions are bad, but there are many bad people in the world.

Of course, not only is religious doctrine unnecessary for massacring people, the greatest examples of which strike me as very atheist indeed, but science is also helping us to kill the inhabitants of whole cities, in one go.

tarashill atheists don't rage against god; we don't believe in god.

The ire is of course against religion. it's certainly not against all religious people. We aren't tarnishing all religious people with the same brush. One problem, however, is that good religious people (of which there are many) give bad ideas cover. What we are pointing out is that sloppy reasoning and thinking (i.e. unprovable statements like my god can beat up yours) is the basis for a lot of nastiness in this world.