I have absolute proof that there is no God.

[seeker]

I've just seen in our local paper that a little girl who lives in our town has died. She has been the focus of much prayer since she was taken ill last year. Her parents were thoroughly good Christian people who trusted God absolutely.

The is no way that a loving, omnipotent, beneficent God who notes even a sparrow falling would not have answered these people's prayer.

So, if I had even a scintilla of doubt, it is now gone. There is no God.

How utterly devastating for you, missymoo. I'm so sorry.

I can understand how faith could help you believe there is justice in an unfair world - but not really how you come to trust in the fairness & justice of a god who allows your children to die. It gives you comfort, and I wouldn't feel comfortable trying to trash that.

But I feel somewhat manipulated by all the grief posts here. Perhaps it's inevitable with seeker's choice of subject, but this ethical atheist is hampered in her argument by consideration for the bereaved faithful.

Chelc is a pagan and much of why she writes is why I share some of her beliefs and Spirtualist ones, too.

How do you feel manipulated, garlic? If you're firm enough in your beliefs you'd know such emotion, IMO. 'By all the grief posts on here.' How? Are they that weak, to be affected by internet sprites?

Mydaughter died, of a horrific and horrendous illness. And my belief is that her body was just a shell. She's gone on to the spirit life, some call it heaven, I feel that is too restrictive an ideal, and I feel her here, see her here, in many ways. I was born a medium, on my father's side, I've long written about it here. His mother was an Indian pagan, converted to Christianity, but she was still a pagan. She was all, a healer (it was her surviving sister who was the medium), a Catholic and a pagan, because to her, the Great Spirit was all one. She was first a Mayan. Her beliefs would never been swayed by some stranger telling her otherwise.

I should add that her child died, too, age 2. And she prayed, to her God. She also did rituals, in her way, till she fell ill, too.

Despite all this it did not lessen her belief that those who die pass to the spirit world, heaven, Nirvana, whatever you want to call it.

She would say, 'If Christ, Mary and all the saints can be with us always, then why not everyone else?' and when her own children would see, and her grandchildren, instruct them as such. My father saw, his sister saw. I see and my son does, too.

It's a big unicorn to others, so I don't care. I'm big enough and ugly enough not to doubt what I see and feel.

Why do you, by a few posts on the internet?

expat I didn't see the deleted post.
I have seen in at least one book, not the idea that our children died just to make us stronger, but that in the afterlife, time is not the same and that in the afterlife we know all that has happened on earth and all that will happen. So we know in advance what will happen in a life which is of our own choosing. We choose it before we enter it.
I feel that I knew Sylvie-Rose was going to die. I was so happy to finally bring her home from hospital and the doctors were confident in releasing her, we really had no reason to think she would die. But yet, when she did, I had this feeling of "Oh, that's right, we can't keep her"
My cousin who has a child with severe SN's was not surprised when she was told on her scan. She was expecting it. She had no reason to expect it, she was a healthy young woman and her son is the only person in the world to have the two conditions he has.

The children who die, that is part of their journey but by no means the reason that they exist. They are also on a longer journey, a series of lives and sometimes they are the "teachers" we know from the afterlife. So you die, meet your teacher and say "Ah, YOU were my child"

Now, I have to say, the book I read this from, I wasn't mad about. It was by a guy who claims to regress people through past lives. I would have preferred if he'd said that he did a bit of research and found that he could confirm that indeed one of the people his subject remembered "being" did in fact exist, that there had been a Jack Murphy in the 1800's in the USA who'd shot himself, for example. He seemed happy to just take people at their word about these past lives.

But parts of it did ring true and agreed with what I'd read from books based on spiritualism.

So garlic would you prefer us bereaved mums to just shut up and go elsewhere so that you're more free to talk? I know seeker would. I irritate her by bringing up my dead daughter. I stifle the conversation, apparently.

But she brought up a dead child in the OP.

And not for the first time.

This is the second dead child it took to convince seeker that God wasn't real. The second thread where she's used another person's child dying to justify her belief that God doesn't exist. But seeker was already an atheist, has always been as long as I've read her posts on MN. So who is she trying to convince?
Weren't you convinced already, seeker? Or are you a different kind of atheist?
And why is it so important for you to try to convince everyone else? Why on earth does anyone else's belief, based on their own thoughts and experiences bother you so very much?

If your child died, would you be prepared to bow out of any philosophical discussion forever, just to make other people more comfortable? I'm not.

Also for whoever answered me on a "belief system", that that's what a religion is, I don't follow a "system". I don't attend any church. I pick and choose what I believe based on my own experiences and on the experiences of others I know to be of sound mental health. Some are a bit spooky.
I don't have a "system", just belief.

The point is, expat (and I agree with garlic) that's it's very difficult to continue a discussion of this sort, about the existence of God & any proof or lack of it, without being accused of being insensitive to the feelings of people to whom faith matters a very great deal.

I have every sympathy with missymoo, and indeed with you. I cannot begin to imagine the devastation you've both been through and the last thing I (and, I'm sure garlic, although it's not my place to speak for her) wants to do is upset anyone.

So, does this mean we can't discuss it at all? I don't like being called "rude", as I was up thread - because I'm not. Neither do I like being called a twattish troll for not believing in ghosts (another thread!), but I can absolutely guarantee that, no matter how carefully I word something, somebody will be offended (usually on someone's behalf) because I dare to question the "evidence" they present to "prove" their god?

That faith means a lot to some people, comforts them & gives them strength is not in question. But it says nothing about whether the god they believe in is real or not, so doesn't belong in the debate. The moment it's introduced, the discussion is effectively over because decent human beings actually don't like causing further distress to people who are already in pain.

And is that really fair?

And, for what it's worth, I followed the threads about your gorgeous little girl and was very moved by what you went through (are still going through) as a family. The fact that I do not share your beliefs or faith does not lessen that one iota.

"If your child died, would you be prepared to bow out of any philosophical discussion forever, just to make other people more comfortable? I'm not."

Which is exactly what you're expecting seeker & other atheists to do. We cannot discuss why we don't believe any god exists because some people who have lost children believe that he does and take comfort from that.

It works both ways, actually.

Chip, she wrote that it was her belief that children were taken to teach their surviving loved ones to grow spiritually.

I find that highly insulting, considering what I believed and always have and do now is a mix, as was my grandmother's, herself having buried her beloved firstborn, age 2, a mix of Christian, Spirtualist and pagan.

As she said, 'Can we not just go with what we feel is divine and worship it? Do we need all this?' And what's more, she couldn't get her head round the hatred, the lack of tolerance and not being able to live and let live. She'd say, 'There's no need for this to visit us in the spirit life! You must let go.' And always tell me, once she knew I could see, that the dead had no place permanently fixed here, but they could visit and pass messages and guide, but if there were one fixed here, a seer could tell and it was the duty of the seer move such a soul on to the spirit world. That is was okay for those who passed to visit and pass on messages, but not to become trapped.

She was especially weary of the spirits of children who were present in the corporeal world. She said such spirits were confused and scared and it was the duty of the seer, to tell them they were dead to this life and move them on, and indeed, the first spirit I ever did so was that of a child.

And if all sounds woo, well, her people gave us a very accurate calendar.

'The point is, expat (and I agree with garlic) that's it's very difficult to continue a discussion of this sort, about the existence of God & any proof or lack of it, without being accused of being insensitive to the feelings of people to whom faith matters a very great deal.'

But I'm not at all accusing you of that, garlic. The OP asked me if I wanted her to have this thread deleted and I said no because I find it thoughtful.

Your beliefs are as valid as my own.

The only thing I find insensitive is the idea that children die so that their loved ones can grow spiritually, with their dead children as guides, and I see that post has been deleted per the poster's request. I did not ask her to do that anymore than I disabuse your own beliefs.

I accord others the same respect for their beliefs as I expect of mine, which are admittedly different from some and fully a product of both my background, upbringing and personal life.

What is saddening is that others don't seem able to do this without slinging.

Sorry, I meant Crickey!

And I never levelled any accusation at you for your beliefs.

Again, I'm happy with this thread because I think it is good food for thought and good debate. I am all about that.

My beliefs are strong enough, I'm not bothered by those who disagree with them and more than willing to listen.

:)

I think it's unfair to say, 'If your child died . . . ' because so long as that is not the case, it's hypothetical and not pertinent to the discussion.

No, expat I know you weren't - and I wasn't suggesting that you thought that at all.

I was trying to explain what I thought garlic meant by what she said - about feeling manipulated etc.

I think what you've written is really interesting, actually. And, yep, debate is always, always good :)

No, I'm not asking you to shut up. I didn't properly understand your post, expat, so I'll just try and reply to you both together.

I don't have 'beliefs' regarding god, spirits, etc. I hold no truck with the supernatural, whatever coat it wears. I can't defend my 'beliefs' because I can't defend an absence.

I understand how faith can help to smooth the sharpest edges of grief. I wouldn't want to attack something that serves such a useful emotional purpose for posters on this thread. Because of the powerful emotional content in many posts here, it's impossible for an atheist to freely discuss the non-existence of god/s and spirits without hurting somebody. I don't want to hurt people whose feelings are raw. As you can see, this means I must censor myself due to the emotional investment of others.

This can't be a balanced & respectful debate, because the emotions trump reason. If I say what I'd like to say, it will hurt people I don't want to hurt more than they already do. I'm even worried this post will offend.

I'm interested in the spirit as part of psychology; I'm interested in philosophy as part of science. A discussion around those areas is kind of lopsided without input from people of faith, but it's become extremely hard to have such a discussion on Mumsnet because the faithful tend to get hurt feelings. Atheists aren't emotionally invested in the absence of supernatural forces, so the faithful get emotional 'trumps' and discussion goes lopsided the other way!

I didn't know Seeker had used a child's death twice to make her point. Perhaps that explains the edginess on this thread ... Anyway, I've doubtless managed to upset somebody now in spite of my careful phrasing. For that I apologise.

Cross-posted :) Thanks for the above.

Problem is - does "disagreeing" amount to "disrespecting"?

You see - actually, I disagree with quite a lot of what you've said. But I don't disrespect a single word, or you for believing it. There's a distinction there that people don't always get - and that's where the offence & upset comes from, generally.

That was for expat, btw.

Oh, I disagree with you, Crickey, and garlic. I don't expect you to share my beliefs at all! I realise they are not very mainstream and largely a mix of my own life and experience. I know there's no hard proof of them. I don't honestly care. I didn't believe them, either and still half don't and struggle with them.

But they're there.

I don't recall having told anyone to shut up, also. And when I found the idea that children die to enlighten their loved ones insulting, I said as much rather than attacking the poster.

If everyone were able to share their beliefs and feelings as articulately as you, expat, and with as much respectful tolerance, we'd be having some cracking discussions!

"I don't recall having told anyone to shut up, also. And when I found the idea that children die to enlighten their loved ones insulting, I said as much rather than attacking the poster"

I haven't seen anyone tell anyone to shut up. Maybe the person that posted that was referring to another thread, I'm not sure.

So - we're in happy disagreement then? :)

And, yes, I agree with garlic. It is genuinely interesting to talk to and share a discussion with someone about their beliefs & hopefully learn something without being accused of being rude, angry at god or bitter (as I am frequently am accused).

Sorry, expat, I started typing my post after Chips' at 01:16 (heck, where did the time go??!) and replied to your preceding one at the same time. It was Chip who asked if I wanted all the bereaved parents to shut up, not you.

Now I've got to go to bed ... and will probably lie awake anyway, thinking about Big Questions

Really interesting posts from you and Crikey.

When my babies died I used God as someone to blame for the totally shitty thing that just happened. Now its more of a case that I NEED to believe that I am going to see them again I can't comprehend the thought of not seeing them and I don't want to think that there was no reason they died. I would never judge anyone for not believing, or try to convince anyone differently, none of us know for sure.

Expat I am sorry to hear about your loss. My son died 14 years ago and my daughter 5 years ago and its just a shitty shitty situation.

It's nothing other than shit, missy. My daughter had a rare form of acute myeloid leukaemia which meant it was not curable by chemo alone, so we tried stem cell transplant. But she died from secondary infection nearly 60 days later. I won't bother here, describing how hellish those last 60 days were on her, suffice it to say her descent into death was absolutely horrific but for her last hours. It was only by the ICU doc's guidance that we were able to deliver her from its being painful to her as well.

I don't think it gives me room for intolerance or berating others or not discussing. I'd have not done that before I lost my daughter, so I won't do it now.

You can dismiss the story I shared. But it was a condensed story, and I can assure you that while you will get many hits for ABP, this was not a case where ABP was indicated at all. For the doctor to have searched the article as routinely as you suggest, they would have had to use relevant key words. Key words related to ABP were not a feature of his condition.

But it's all irrelevant. The whole point is that if you want to, you can deny any happening as the work of man.