OK atheist parents - how do you deal with The God Thing?

[Bibulus]

DH and I aren't believers but we don't make a big thing out of it. We made the decision early on to be as neutral as possible in the way we talked about religion with DD, i.e. 'some people believe this, some believe that....'

She prays at school, she knows all about baby Jesus and his mother Mary, although she's probably a bit sketchy on the details of it all and has barely ever set foot in a religious building.

Anyway, this evening she asked to visit the local churchyard, so we had a little walk around, and she was asking lots of questions about the people buried there, why people brought flowers to them etc. Then she wanted to go into the church, and it was open so we poked our head in.

DD was spellbound by it - she said breathlessly, 'why is it so pretty in here mummy?' and asked a million questions about how you talk to god, what does heaven look like, who are the pretty ladies with wings on the wall.....! Then we got collared by the vicar, who was very pleasant and sweet to her and showed her round the church which enchanted her even more.

Am now regretting taking her in there a bit! I didn't want to ruin it for her so I haven't said anything to undermine the idea of god or praying or heaven. Now she is sitting next to me on the sofa practising praying. DH will do his nut!

So anyway, I'm interested to hear how other non-Christian, non-believing parents handle all this stuff?

sieglinde I agree. Absolute certainty can come across rather alarming, particularly when it comes with avoiding discussion and evaluation of ideas and new information or in wanting to avoid exposure to certain types of ideas.

We should work more towards building a strong framework of logic and discussion and an understanding of how to evaluate ideas and logical fallacies. Also, showing that there is nothing wrong in not knowing, that there is so much we don't know and much more to explore, and that it is fine to wrestle with and debate ideas. If we give our kids the skills and confidence to deal with concepts, it would be less concerning about what ideas they come into contact with.

So... no you're not wicked because, (some people believe) since Jesus came to save us all, everyone has the opportunity of redemption and everlasting life by following his path and, depending on which church you're in, you can lead a 'sin-filled' life then confess and be forgiven on your death bed.

No-one is intrinsically wicked and everyone has the opportunity to be recognised as good by behaving nicely and you don't even have tell god about it because he's omniscient and just knows. At some point you'll have to believe in god and heaven if you want to go there. (Though original sin, the church's reconcilition of the fate of un-baptised babies and changing beliefs over time on these issues could make for an interesting discussion later).

Course I think that as this life is it for me, what I do with it and to others really matters. I don't have the opportunity of supernatural forgiveness, so for me, my impact while alive is the only thing that counts and I am entirely responsible for my actions. That for me is the basis for quite a moral approach to life.

So 'no, you are essentially a good person and always have the choice to be good in any situation. Other people can see if you are good or bad and are happy if you are nice to them, sad if you are unkind and, if you believe in god, then he can see it all too. It is the same for everyone else, whatever god they may believe in', or something like that.

oh no...I feel an aibu coming on...

AIBU to think that atheists are more moral than the religious? Because when an atheist does the right thing they had a free choice and have done it because of their own personal moral code whereas the believer is being good because they have been told to be good and there will literally be hell to pay if they dont?

One more thought is that I think the way you are taught about and experience religion is quite important. If you're indoctrinted in a scary, forceful way that's bound to have an impact.

I was brought up churchgoing C of E by a mother who believed but when I asked questions, she explained bible stories as metaphor, products of their time, usually written long after the events and ways of getting a message across, with a basis of historical truth in the new testament. (So the miracle of the loaves and fishes worked because most people had brought some food and when the trays were passed around they kept only what they needed and put the rest in, so everyone had enough. Thus it's a story about how Jesus inspired people to be the best they could be, to think of others and share and that's how a generalised love can work).

Without getting into analysis of the specifics, that general approach of sceptical belief gave me knowledge but allowed me to go either way (and is very C of E anyway, try asking a few vicars how literally they take the bible!)

To be honest, it isn't really the atheists doing the brainwashing, even if some of them are. The majority of brainwashers out there are religious ones. I have one that lives just over the way. She home eds all four DC because the local schools are just not religious enough. These sorts of people are CERTAIN they are right, much more so than any scientist-atheist person I've ever met. Why? Because the atheist has reached her belief through reading proven science texts, philosophy etc, whereas the believer has had it zapped into their brains. They just KNOW and they feel all warm and fuzzy.

I am very certain that there is no god. As certain in my faith as those who believe in god (in all his various forms) allah, all forms of other deities and little green men.

As a parent, I believe it is my duty to indoctrinate cause my children to analyse other people's superstitions with rationality and scepticism.

It will of course serve me jolly well right if they rebel and become islamic fundamentalists. Or catholics or something

entrophygirl - Interesting debate idea. YANBU to think atheists can be more moral than a religious person, but YABU to suggest all religious people fear hell (as not all religions have hell).

LeBFG - Each group has members who are equally brainwashing, and I know many home educators who are atheists who feel schools are too religious. There will be many people of any faith and none who are there simply because their family or friends or just dropped religion with little study and people of both groups who change as adults after a long period of study.

At risk of opening up a big debate, I work with a lot of Muslim children who have no choice to go to Mosque or the Madrasa and to learn the Koran.

Does that make them believers? I also know that it seems to be hard for Muslims to renounce their faith.

I think people have free choice and no child should be told what to believe or not to believe.

AIBU to think that atheists are more moral than the religious? Because when an atheist does the right thing they had a free choice and have done it because of their own personal moral code whereas the believer is being good because they have been told to be good and there will literally be hell to pay if they don't?

Answer - but they are definitely not more moral because most charity agencies etc are still run by religious groups, also all my Christian friends and friends of other religions do some kind of charity work. None of my atheist friends do anything, so in answer there is no way they are more moral.

The comparison to the tooth fairy I actually find offensive. When I look at the world and everything in it (including human beings) I can't believe that there is nothing more to this life. The tooth fairy by contrast is nothing but a mere story put together for children. God (and what/who he is) is a much more complicated concept.

Also, of course those who believe think they are right. I believe in God and I think I am right - however, if you don't want to be converted or me to put forward a staunch defence just don't ask about it to begin with.

We use the "some people believe xyz but we don't" line.

If one of my DS's suddenly became interested in religion, I guess I'd treat it the same way I'd treat an interest in stamps or wrestling; ie take a polite interest but not pretend to share it myself.

enimmead Going back to a point I made way upthread, I think immersion can be a good way of learning about something and does provide an insider's viewpoint, so an awareness of why people would believe and how it might feel to believe, which I think is really helpful in understanding religion and empathising with the religious as an atheist adult, rather than having only the external standpoint of 'logically it's all nonsense however it's presented, so you are wrong'.

I didn't have a choice about going to church or to Sunday School and went through phases of believing, more or less, as a child, finally deciding against and refusing to go to conformation classes at 11, so I don't have the most sophisticated understanding but do feel I have some insight as well as knowledge and can apply my adult understanding of how people and the world work to both.

Basically my view is that many of us had quite an immersion without being harmed, emerging happily as non-believers but with some good stories, also that only standing outside does not help us understand the viewpoint of people inside and, that there's a lot to be gained culturally from knowing the stories and history.

Of course that's coming from a religion that one can opt out of easily, these days.

On that theme, I was very amused to read on an NHS form that my baby has no religion. We'd been asked if we did, said no and this had been transposed to a question about her. Opens a whole kettle of fish about whether religion is about culture or belief. (If babies can have religion, I was relieved she hadn't come out a believer in Shinto, Jainism or something else we'd have had to have done a lot of reading about!)

noobdy...but is it moral to do charity work because you are afraid of going to hell? seems a selfish reason to me...

those atheists that do do charity work or donate to charity (they do exist even if you don't know any) are doing it altruistically with no hope of favour or fear of disfavour if they dont.

good yup that is a failure of my aibu...so what's in it for the faithful of religions that don't have a hell? Is it all feasting and virgins in the afterlife?

"Answer - but they are definitely not more moral because most charity agencies etc are still run by religious groups, also all my Christian friends and friends of other religions do some kind of charity work. None of my atheist friends do anything, so in answer there is no way they are more moral."

Your firstnpoint is wrong. Most charity agencies are not run by Chrisitan groups.

And yournwon circle is not a particularly fair test of the altruism, or otherwise, of atheists or Christians.

noobydoo you've illustrated the problem of relying on anecdote for evidence.

Are 'most charities are run by religious groups'? Stats please.

I've worked for non (and never had been)-religious charities all my career, give a good proportion of my income to other charities and have done quite a lot of voluntary charitable work too. I make moral choices about many things which have determined how I live e.g. being a vegetarian (whether that's 'the right thing to do' is irrelevant, it is a moral choice, taken and acted upon sincerely). So, with one example, I blow your case out of the water, because you are making the mistake of extrapolating from limited personal experience to make a general claim ('atheists are deifnitely not more moral'). To substantiate your claim you'd need some more objective evidence based on a larger population.

The question posed is also more interesting than your answer suggests, as it touches upon motivation. If someone is doing 'good' things in order to buy favour with god and eternal life, is that not in fact a selfish act? Whereas someone who does not believe in heavenly reward can act in a truly selfless way.

Room for endless interesting discussion there and if whoever it is ever does pose such an AIBU we can all take part but my point is that because 'me and my friends are like this' is not a sensible way to understand the wider world or make definitive claims about the way it is.

You're right about the tooth fairy though, that is a tiny story attempting explain something very small, not a big story attempting to explain what we're doing here.

Btw has anyone read 'Life of Pi'? That is very relevant to this topic, essentially, 'if your choice is between two stories and which you believe doesn't make any difference to what actually happens, why not go for the better story?'

I loved reading the Life of Pi but didn't get the last chapter (or was it an epilogue, I don't remember?)

Was that the point of it?

What I just said - the tiger etc were the 'better story' and more palatable than familial fighting and cannibalism, so why not believe that, if it's more fun and keeps you sane.

Oh, OK, thanks!

I was trying to talk friends and family into reading it at the time, as I really wanted someone to talk it over with!

Yes, I have stated this to someone else who said 'that's not what is was about at all' as I think they'd skated over the last chapter but I thought this was pretty clear and he was clear at the beginning that it was about how he saw religions - they offer good stories whch are much more fun than boring rationalism, so why not stop worrying ad just go along with it.

noobydoo: "The comparison to the tooth fairy I actually find offensive. When I look at the world and everything in it (including human beings) I can't believe that there is nothing more to this life."

The fact you can't believe it doesn't mean it isn't true, however. People find all sorts of things difficult to believe (relativity is quite hard, for example), while also managing to believe quite nonsensical things. My personal favourite is the Prince Philip cargo cult: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Philip_Movement

"noobydoo: "The comparison to the tooth fairy I actually find offensive. When I look at the world and everything in it (including human beings) I can't believe that there is nothing more to this life."

Why is it offensive?

Atheists "are definitely not more moral because most charity agencies etc are still run by religious groups, also all my Christian friends and friends of other religions do some kind of charity work. None of my atheist friends do anything, so in answer there is no way they are more moral."

There is so much naivety in that post, I think.

Firstly, why do you assume that charities do good? Some charities do good certainly, but others actually do significant damage. Have you ever been to Africa? You would be very sceptical as to whether or not charities actually do any good if you had. Certainly all the medics of my acquaintance who've spent any time at all in sub-saharan Africa roundly condemn all charitable activities there.

In fact it is the activities of missionaries in Africa that have really put me off most forms of christianity. Talk about interfering do-gooders knowing not what they do.

Anyhow, leaving aside the damage the crazies are doing in Africa, why Noobydoo do you equate charitable doings with doing good? Even if you think that charities = unequivocal good the equation still doesn't necessarily work. You might be doing your charitable works a bit vaingloriously. To be seen to be doing good. To be keeping up with the religious Joneses.

How do you know whether or not your atheist friends do anything? They might be quietly doing good. Doing good in unseen forms. Not for the approval of the vicar, the verger or the WI. They might be volunteering to be Samaritans on the QT.

Of course there could be basic tautology in noobydoo's argument too. If she were only to recognise things she considers moral goods as moral and her morality is based in Christianity, it is likely that she will see more 'morality' in her Christian than in her atheist friends. It could just be that their morals, so their actions in accordance, are different.