Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

999 replies

Spearshake · 04/08/2015 13:29

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!

OP posts:
noblegiraffe · 07/08/2015 08:39

Or how might the world look if it was sneezed out by the Great Green Arkleseizure who neither knows nor cares about us?

I don't understand how anyone can believe in any type of interventionist God.

TTWK · 07/08/2015 08:40

Tarashill-The odds of winning the lottery are huge, to what the odds are of the positioning of the sun and moon to earth by chance are. I read once that there is more chance of winning the Euro millions every single day since the beginning of time for it to be so.

This is the kind of daft comment that really annoys me. Complete lack of understanding of the situation.

Lets look at probability. The National Lotto started in Nov 94. So, give or take, there have been 1000 saturday night draws. I could ask Camalot to supply me with a print out of all the 1000 winning lines. Then I could pose the question, what were the odds of this particular set of 1000 winning lines coming up? It would be 14m to the power of 1000, or 14m x14mx14m (and so on, 1000 times.) A number so vast that it would outnumber all the atoms in the universe. BUT IT HAPPENED! Those 1000 sets of numbers did come up!

Because once the lotto started, something had to result. Either 1000 sets of winning numbers, or the lotto not being a success and closing down after 3 months, or another planet colliding with the earth in 1995 and killing us all.

So, when the universe started 13.7 billion years ago, yes, the chances that 13.7b years later I would be on the internet pointing out Tarashill's flawed thinking were indeed incredibly remote, but something had to happen. It just so happens it's this. It could have been no planet here at all, or had we been a bit closer or further from the sun, a different type of life may have evolved. Or my great great great granny might not have bumped into he husband to be on the train and I might not have existed at all, and someone else would be rolling their eyes at Tarashill's comment.

You cannot look back from a current position and say the odds are too remote for it to have happened. It's complete pseudo science claptrap.

fourtothedozen · 07/08/2015 08:42

I hope it exists. You mean my post rapture pet rescue service run by atheists may not be that golden opportunity.
Subcriptions I have already taken are non- refundable. I made that clear.

tarashill · 07/08/2015 09:03

factsandfaith.com/evidence-from-design-an-introduction-and-summary-of-the-evidence/TTWK I don't think you grasped the idea. What do you mean "it happened?" of course it happened, why on earth wouldn't it. I'm talking about odds so huge that it happened for one person. For one person to have won the lottery every day since time began. It's inconsequential that the lottery didn't exist the, it's an example of overwhelming odds. These odds have been worked out scientifically. Another one is this, for the sun to be in the position it is, to have arrived there by chance, to support life on earth the odds are so huge that it's like a blind man finding one coloured grain of sand out of all the beaches in the world. You might as well say odds like that are so high that it was impossible. If there was ever evidence of God then that must be it. The article above explains it better.

fourtothedozen · 07/08/2015 09:08

But it's such an arrogant stance to assume that planet Earth was "designed " for us. Thinking the that the sun and planet were positioned just for us.

That's the kind of thinking a toddler has.

We are a chance happening, no great miracle.

Life can be created in a laboratory. I have made DNA thousands of times in a laboratory. Self replicating genes can be artificially synthesised.

If there was ever evidence of God then that must be it. Hmm

TTWK · 07/08/2015 09:14

I don't think you grasped the idea. What do you mean "it happened?" of course it happened, why on earth wouldn't it.

You could say exactly the same about the positioning of the planets. Why wouldn't they be in this position? The odds of them being in the right position and no more remote than the odds of them being in any single one of the billions of wrong positions.

Can't you see that?

BertrandRussell · 07/08/2015 09:19

Tarashill- we evolved to fit the conditions prevailing.

tarashill · 07/08/2015 09:40

Right I'm going to have to hide this thread, I refuse to have all these atheists challenging every word I say and over riding everything I say. The most prominent, eminent scientists of our times are baffled as to why and how the sun is the exact position it is in, but you on here are not at all baffled, how strange. That is what I call arrogant. It's funny that not one of those scientists has said "that is how we've evolved" . That's because it isn't. Have you realised how stupid you sound when you think you know more than the most intelligent scientists in the country.
But carry on denying, perish the thought that God might really exist, I mean how awful would that be.
TTWK you still haven't grasped what I was saying. Leading atheists even are blown away by what I said, it sounds silly when you imply you know better.

noblegiraffe · 07/08/2015 09:42

Scientists thought that nothing could live near hydrothermal vents because the conditions there are so toxic to life.

Yet there are loads of animals that successfully live there.

Scientists saying 'I can't imagine that life could exist in conditions other than X' are arguing from incredulity rather than any actual knowledge of where life can occur.

fourtothedozen · 07/08/2015 09:44

The most prominent, eminent scientists of our times are baffled as to why and how the sun is the exact position it is in

That is just nonsense.

noblegiraffe · 07/08/2015 09:45

8 new planets found in Goldilocks zone:

www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2015-04

fourtothedozen · 07/08/2015 09:48

tara I refuse to have all these atheists challenging every word I say and over riding everything I say.

It's you who are making these wild claims. Do you expect them to go unchallenged?

frenchcheeses · 07/08/2015 09:51

So much more crazy since I last looked this morning. It's impossible to have a rational argument with crazy.

SolidGoldBrass · 07/08/2015 10:01

Religious people always get their undies in a bundle when other people refuse to take their imaginary friend seriously. They start whining that rational people think believers are stupid and are being meeeeeeaaaaan (exactly like the toddler who wigs out when Mummy won't get off the last bus to pursue the toddler's imaginary friend which flew out of the window and ran away...).

And then they go on to demonstrate exactly why rational people are not being nasty for the sake of it when they consider believers to be a bit silly. Belief in any gods is an indicator of wilful ignorance and often sheer gullibility. Either that or it's just lazy thinking - someone told you about this sky-fairy when you were a kid and you thought 'that's nice' and it's unkind of people to point out that it's utter bullshit.

DoraGora · 07/08/2015 10:05

It's not about crazy at all. There is no rational solution to the deist versus atheist controversy because both require a belief in what does or does not exist beyond what can be proven. What's crazy is to try to resolve it. The only logical thing to do is to say, I can prove this much. If you wish to believe something beyond that, I cannot support you with facts or observations.

I think that's about as far as anyone can rationally go.

DoraGora · 07/08/2015 10:07

solid, I think we've moved beyond the point of using insults to try to improve the atheist position. It adds nothing and is just unpleasant. Thanks.

fourtothedozen · 07/08/2015 10:07

because both require a belief in what does or does not exist

No they don't.

Mermaidhair · 07/08/2015 10:10

Solid I am going to spend the next few months including you in my prayers.

DoraGora · 07/08/2015 10:11

Yes, they do, I'm afraid. The existence of God can be neither proven nor disproven. If you believe in the non existence of God then you require faith in the fact that God does not exist.

DoraGora · 07/08/2015 10:13

We've been through all this for days. I suggest you read the thread, if you want to know the ins and outs of the refutation of non existence.

keepitsimple0 · 07/08/2015 10:21

There is no rational solution to the deist versus atheist controversy because both require a belief in what does or does not exist beyond what can be proven. What's crazy is to try to resolve it. The only logical thing to do is to say, I can prove this much. If you wish to believe something beyond that, I cannot support you with facts or observations.

it's not crazy to try to resolve it. it's clearly something that many people are interested, layman and experts alike.

However, I absolutely agree with your assertions that it is incredibly unlikely we can solve the prime mover problem, and I also agree with your last sentence If you wish to believe something beyond that, I cannot support you with facts or observations. that describes the position of pretty much every atheist I know. Since the issue of existence is unresolved, any conclusion beyond is completely unjustified. So, then, isn't the rational course of action to live as if there is no god? Because you if you catered to every creature you couldn't prove didn't exist you would literally starve to death because that's all you would be doing all day long. Isn't then church attendance completely a mystery to you based on your last sentence?

DoraGora · 07/08/2015 10:24

Maybe, but it supposes that physical phenomena might be most important in a person's choice of belief. Someone might chose to believe in God because he thinks mankind is bloodthirsty and downright dangerous, for example.

noblegiraffe · 07/08/2015 10:27

Why would you choose to believe in a God that has (deliberately?) created a bloodythirsty and downright dangerous set of humans? Confused

He doesn't sound very nice.

DoraGora · 07/08/2015 10:35

Perhaps in the hope that he will, eventually, help mankind to make more of his cooperative abilities and less of his warlike ones. From where I'm standing, mankind needs all the help he can get.

noblegiraffe · 07/08/2015 10:43

That's a pretty depressing reason, Dora :(

I think this is why I admire people like Elon Musk. He identifies problems facing humanity, then rolls up his shirt sleeves and sets about trying to solve them. Obviously the massive intellect and wealth helps.