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!

I am not the one making claims about his existence.

You are totally not going to get anywhere with that! You're asking for an even bigger paradigm shift than asking white people to recognise white privilege.

I am the Blue Fairy. Yes, I am. No, I can't prove it. But you can't prove I'm not. Therefore, I am the Blue Fairy! See, you said you can't prove I'm not so I am!

That's not how science/reason works.

Do you think that saying. "The sun will rise in the East tomorrow" is a matter of faith?

How about "If I drop this mug it will fall downwards"? Or "If I drop this cork into water it will float" Faith? Or the nearest thing to objective truth that's possible based on empirical evidence?

I think some of those can be tested by looking out of the window. If you provide me with a test for the non existence of God, I'll happily run it for you.

I'm not making claims about his existence, either. I'm saying it's a belief. I'm quite happy to admit that.

So we have some agreement.

You admit your faith is not based on evidence.

My world view is based on empirical evidence and that tells me there is no god.
My view is not a faith based one- yet you are trying to tell me it is.

Pass the brick wall someone.

Really, do you not think that religious people are familiar with the scientific method? Clearly religion does not operate because of a mis-function of reason - people believe despite it being unreasonable not because they think it's not. And do you think atheists only believe in things that are 'reasonable.' Come back when you can give an a priori proof for the existence of right and wrong, then sneer at religious people. I say this as an atheist btw.

Well, no. All your empirical evidence tells you is that you've been looking in the wrong place.

dora- but these examples have positive proof.

Do you believe in the existence of Ganesh?

I would speak to her and tell that you will be responsible for your child's spiritual ed., thanks, as she was for hers.
^this. I believe the right thing to do is educate children about different religions but not force them into believing any of them. And I was christened and went to a Christian school where they very much tried to indoctrinate and decide our beliefs for us.

Also thank you to the poster who mentioned humanism, I've never heard of it before. I always guessed I was probably an atheist but just read up on humanism and I identify with it a lot.

"If you provide me with a test for the non existence of God, I'll happily run it for you."

No. It's for the person making the unsubstantiated claim to offer proof. That's how it works.

see, that's what I don't care for. You may not believe. I agree, St Peter probably isn't up there waiting to welcome me and re-unite me with everyone I've lost - but we don't know, we can't say for sure it's lies. And nobody religious is intending to lie to children. At best we're mostly fools aren't we?

While the conversation has moved onto the delightful issue of unfalsifiable claims, don't make the mistake of thinking that a given religion cannot be established as lies. You don't need to prove a negative to prove that Christianity is built on bullshit. It has a Holy Book for that.

What was my unsubstantiated claim? My substantiated claim is that the statement there is no God, is one of belief. The existence of God being something that can neither be proven nor disproven.

If you believe that the non existence of God can be proven, then let's see it.

If you believe that the non existence of God can be proven, then let's see it.

Why do you think that is grounds to believe? As people have repeatedly stated, there are an infinite number of things it is currently impossible to prove the non-existence of.

I don't and I never said that I did. Belief is a choice. My issue is with those who claim the non existence as a fact. It isn't.

Do you believe that it's better to be altruistic than selfish? Congratulations, you believe in a positive claim about the world that is not subject to proof. Move along now, and stop being a dick to religious people.

Do you believe that it's better to be altruistic than selfish? Congratulations, you believe in a positive claim about the world that is not subject to proof.

Anthropologists and the like might disagree with you there.

PS Saying things about religion that hurts religious people's feelings in the context of a debate about religion is not 'being a dick to religious people'. Give me a fucking break.

Eh, anthropology provides a proof for the existence of an objective system of morality? Run that by me again?

Surely anthropologists are more likely than anyone to be moral relativists.

"Do you believe that it's better to be altruistic than selfish? Congratulations, you believe in a positive claim about the world that is not subject to proof."

What? No. Doing things for other people improves the quality of your life in myriad ways. This is shown in a zillion studies. This is in no way comparable to unsubstantiated belief in a fickle deity for whose existence there is not a shred of proof.

Eh, anthropology provides a proof for the existence of an objective system of morality? Run that by me again?

Oh, so we're now defining 'better' as exclusively a moral judgement as opposed to in terms of efficiency or evolutionary success, etc., even though you didn't specify your usage as so restrictive, just so you can pretend to have scored a point?

Personally I try not be intellectually dishonest when debating, but different strokes for different folks, innit.

Ok, if you only do things for other people in order to improve your own circumstances, would never do something for another that did not further your own self interest and don't believe that there is any other basis for believing that altruism is better than selfishness, then fair enough. But this is quite an unusual point of view!

"the statement there is no God, is one of belief"

That's not the statement we are making, though. My statement is "I listened to your God hypothesis and think it makes no sense & you have zero proof, so I don't believe it". This is not a statement of belief, and I don't have to prove the opposite of your claim to say that I don't believe you.

The onus of proof is on the person making a claim, not on the ones who are skeptical.

Theycallmemellowjello, that's a strawman and you're a mess.

efficiency or evolutionary success

No, I'm not restricting it to that! Can't imagine what gave you that idea - I never brought up either of these things, and in fact they're exactly the opposite of what I mean, as these would potentially provide a basis for objective proof. I'm talking about the feeling, shared by most of us, that it is somehow better to be nice to people than horrible to people, and that this is somehow related to a nebulous concept of good and bad, which underlies our moral judgments. I'm saying that most of us have this concept, and would find it difficult to bring ourselves to accept that there is no such thing as good and bad, but the concepts are not susceptible to positive proof.

Explain why it's a strawman!