Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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:
AlanPacino · 07/08/2015 10:54

up to humanity to solve their own problems

Agreed. But If you believe the bible and Jesus' claims how do you square up the fact that sometimes be intervenes and sometimes he doesn't? A Christian friend thanked god that his mortgage application was accepted and while God was getting it approved he was doing nothing about a child being raped. There is no justification for God only helping sometimes. If he is a hands off God then jesus' lied, if he isn't then he's a monster for the times he doesn't prevent child abuse.

BertrandRussell · 07/08/2015 10:56

"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."

No it doesn't. Atheists go to the point where faith becomes necessary and then stop. People of faith take the leap. That is the essential difference.

DoraGora · 07/08/2015 11:00

It's the agnostic who stops at the place you've identified.

AlanPacino · 07/08/2015 11:08

where the expectation is that they will constantly interfere

Christians claim the bible is gods word. The bible says that God interferes. The NT says that his believers will raise dead people. They don't.

BertrandRussell · 07/08/2015 11:10

Nope. As you have so cogently argued, technically it is impossible to prove a negative, so technically it is impossible to be 100% atheist. Because there is always the possibility that more evidence might emerge tomorrow that proves god's existence

HOWEVER.

It is also impossible to be 100% certain that the sun will rise in the east not the west tomorrow morning. Or that you are not a dolphin (passim). Or that if I drop my cup it will hit the floor. But these possibilities are so vanishingly small that they are not worth considering. An agnostic is someone who looks at the evidence currently available and is not sure whether or not there is a a god. An atheist is someone who looks at the current evidence and concludes that it shows there is no God. A subtle but significant difference.

SmillasSenseOfSnow · 07/08/2015 11:12

It's the agnostic who stops at the place you've identified.

As has already been explained my more people than just me, atheist vs. agnostic is a false dichotomy. You can keep using the words like that but it's really rather pointless when the people you're talking to are not using your definitions. You just keep ignoring that point and hoping that your argument will somehow become valid when everyone magically forgets they're not gnostic atheists, just because you're telling them they are.

StitchingMoss · 07/08/2015 11:12

Alan, this is the thing I struggle with - why doesn't god intervene to stop bad things happening? I have a friend who claims god sorts out new jobs for him - good to know he's keeping busy doing the important stuff while kids are dying of cancer Hmm.

SmillasSenseOfSnow · 07/08/2015 11:12

by* more people

KingOfTheBongo · 07/08/2015 11:26

"And what kind of world would we have if God didn't exist? Pretty much the same as this one, don't you think?"

There is precisely ZERO evidence for that. What a blind leap of faith!

DoraGora · 07/08/2015 11:26

Oxford online dictionary:

Definition of atheist in English:
noun
A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods:

Definition of agnostic in English:
noun
A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

BertrandRussell · 07/08/2015 11:31

Don't get your point, Dora.

keepitsimple0 · 07/08/2015 11:32

Someone might chose to believe in God because he thinks mankind is bloodthirsty and downright dangerous, for example.

does the truth matter to these people? I mean, you can choose to believe in whatever you want by that reasoning. I mean you can replace the argument "Man is evil, therefore god" with "Man is evil therefore ". And while we are dreaming, why not a nicer god. We have this all knowing, powerful, good god, but because of his "plan" that we can't understand, he doesn't actually do anything useful. I want the cooking and cleaning god.

keepitsimple0 · 07/08/2015 11:34

it seems by the definitions given by dora herself, most (every?) atheist here is an agnostic atheist.

is that settled?

fourtothedozen · 07/08/2015 11:39

bertrand- An atheist is someone who looks at the current evidence and concludes that it shows there is no God

I would go one step further. We don't even have to examine and reject. "implicit atheism" the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it. So we could include all babies and children, any cultures who have never been exposed to the idea of religion. These are all atheists too.

Atheism is the default position, we are all born atheists.

KingOfTheBongo · 07/08/2015 11:42

"Atheism is the default position, we are all born atheists."

The evidence overwhelmingly rejects this claim. Even people who only learned to communicate when they were adults, have expressed their pre-existing belief in a divine being.

fourtothedozen · 07/08/2015 11:45

Evidence for this?

DoraGora · 07/08/2015 11:45

Being an agnostic atheist shares a difficulty with being half pregnant, in that it must either be one or the other. You either believe in the non existence, or you don't.

SmillasSenseOfSnow · 07/08/2015 11:50

Being an agnostic atheist shares a difficulty with being half pregnant, in that it must either be one or the other. You either believe in the non existence, or you don't.

You're making a fool of yourself.

StitchingMoss · 07/08/2015 11:52

King, please can you link to evidence for this?

Religion is taught by parents, schools, etc. We're not born religious.

I love that the awkward questions are just being ignored btw - can't explain why kids die of cancer while your rich mate gets a pay rise cos he prayed? Oh, just ignore that one then Hmm.

clarabellabunting · 07/08/2015 11:52

Oxford online dictionary:

Definition of atheist in English:
noun
A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods:

Definition of agnostic in English:
noun
A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

Dora can't you see that one of these definitions speaks about belief in God and one about knowledge of God's existence? Surely you realise that belief and knowledge are two different things?

A person can have belief and still not claim any knowledge. Most people (the vast majority even) who lack belief do not claim knowledge.

keepitsimple0 · 07/08/2015 11:55

You either believe in the non existence, or you don't.

of course. But that's different from saying that non-existence is assured.

You seem to be really having trouble with this non-dichotomy, and it implies that your belief in the non-existence of unicorns is also faith. In fact, you claim that everyone has faith in the non-existence of every imaginable entity for which we have never found an example of (unicorns, zeus, leprachauns, dragons etc etc).

that's not faith. That's assuming the default position of non-existence when existence hasn't been shown. The difference is that you (probably I assume) apply this in most other aspects of your life, except to your favourite god. I assume you don't put food out for unicorns, don't march out at the first sign of rainbows looking for leprachauns etc., and don't fear being burned to a crisp in caves by dragons. Why the inconsistency?

KingOfTheBongo · 07/08/2015 11:55

fourtothedozen how much more evidence do you need? You claim ALL of us are. If you had said "SOME of us", that'd be more open to debate.

machair · 07/08/2015 11:56

Going back to the OP's original question, is it so bad to discuss Jesus with a 5 year old, even if you don't believe in Him? He healed people, taught us not to be judgemental, gave us the story of the Good Samaritan, among other things.

DoraGora · 07/08/2015 11:58

Well, of course anyone can believe that things they don't believe in don't exist. I have no problem with that. All you need to do is say, I don't believe that

such and such

exists.

fourtothedozen · 07/08/2015 11:59

king I am looking for evidence that some people are born with a pre-existing belief in a divine being

Swipe left for the next trending thread