How do you deal with a religious family?

[ignoramus]

I just try to focus on other things. I enjoy travelling around different parts of the world. When I am at home I love my animals and creating art.
Why live miserably?

Cleo, only one thing will make you perfect in my eyes.
Being a crazy cat lady like our friend Cluless Morgan!
But I suppose dogs are OK too in their smelly way! He he

To the OP, just tell them casually that you're not sure anymore, you need to think about stuff and that you're pretty sure either way that your loving family aren't going to put their beliefs before their own flesh and blood in any case.
(This puts them on the back foot with guilt). Plus do you think they will risk not being a part of their granchild's life?

You don't need to tell them if you don't want to...

[Whateverist]

Wait, do you mean your own religious family or someone else's?

[MusicLovingAtheist]

Raising children to believe in religion is pretty much thought enslavement. Children will believe practically anything if they're young enough. I think it's great that you want your child to grow up to think on his own without religious indoctrination. As far as family goes, I decided a while ago that I would tell everyone in my family via long rants on facebook all about how I though religion was bullshit. I got into a couple thoughtful discussions with one of my uncles but for the most part people didn't really say anything about it at all. As far as I can tell, all of my family still loves me (most of them are religious btw). I was extremely depressed at the time too, but that's a different story, but part of the reason I decided to just go tell everyone on facebook. I think another determining factor in telling others that you're an atheist could be how old you are. If you're just a kid telling everyone that you're an atheist then I think it would be more risky because at that point adults still see children as impressionable and think they can still change a child's mind or are perhaps incredulous to believe that a child can think on their own.

As far as I can tell my mom is an agnostic and my dad is an atheist, and my brother won't tell me for whatever reason. My mom and dad both used to take me to church until I was about 15. That's all a vague memory now. I think I started attacking their beliefs when I was pretty young. I used to be extremely aggressive about it. They didn't take kindly to it when I was a kid. I don't remember ever getting punished for it but I do remember a few times where I would start arguing with them out of nowhere when I was feeling confrontational and it would leave them fuming and angry. I know better than to argue with my parents now a days but back then it seemed like a unique challenge to try to argue against what I perceived to be an authority figure. Hell, I did that throughout high school. I almost feel a sense of pride in knowing that I carved out my own thinking skills and learned to think for myself. However, I realize my current state of maturity (whatever level it may be) was reached through many, many untactful and sloppy moves.

As for coming out to your family I don't have the slightest clue. You know your family better than anyone outside of it. If you're old enough, I'd say just wait until you move out. If you have some inheritance to worry about, I'd say just don't tell them unless you think they won't care. If you're young and you think they're smart, capable people, then I would grill them to a crisp (at last that's what I would have done when I was a kid). It's really a matter of pride I think. If you take pride in your atheism, then I would take it to the bank. Personally, that's what I would do at this age. Take all of their religious notions and denounce them in an elegant and not pretentious way. It could even get you a few facebook likes if you do it on facebook (I wrote about a 12 page paragraph critique of religion on facebook and it didn't get me a single like). I'm cool with that though. I feel good exercising my freedom of speech.

[Aractus]

My beliefs are just that the bible is bullshit and just started as a way to try to control society

I would re-think that belief. For three reasons. Firstly, it is much, much better to find the common ground. Secondly, that argument doesn't hold at all for the New Testament which is really all that Christians are interested in, and thirdly, the OT was written from around 1200 BC over the course of 5-600 years or so. The oldest books, including the pentateuch, seem to have been written around 1200 BC, but no one knows for sure when. Most historians would agree that the Hebrew tradition goes back much further than that, which means their religious beliefs and customs are widely believed to have been around well before they were written down. To deny someone that history and claim that it was all made up at or around 1200 BC would require at least some evidence since you're the one making the claim.

As to the common ground, my approach would be this: Christianity is a faith, and as it is a faith it requires believing in something you can't prove or disprove. As that is the case, Christians may be wrong, but also non-Christians may be wrong, neither side has absolute proof. For some people, they are willing to believe in their faith, and for others they are not, and in either case people are entitled to make up their own minds to come to their own beliefs.

---

This is how I would state my belief to a Christian. 1. We agree that the Pentateuch was written around 1200 BC or so, and that all of the events in Genesis either happened thousands of years prior, or were centuries-old legends that were written down, or a combination of both. None were contemporary, nor were they ever recorded as contemporary history in written form. We also agree that the Exodus that occurs in the book of Exodus was written at the very least a couple of centuries after the supposed Exodus was meant to have taken place. We also agree that in our society today, 1 in 4 people will at some time suffer from a diagnosable mental illness, in biblical times they didn't know about mental illnesses, and so there's no way to know who was and who wasn't suffering from a mental illness in the Bible. Suppose it could be proven, for instance, that Abraham existed. Further to that if it were also to be proven that he didn't ever suffer from a mental illness then perhaps he'd count as a credible person to listen to. On the other hand, suppose it was proven he existed and that he suffered from a serious mental illness, such a discovery would have a profoundly different effect to the meanings of his life and teachings, and whether we would think that he's someone worth listening to and following.

Sadly we can't know either way, nor can we know for Moses, or for Jesus, or for Paul or for Luke, or for the 12 disciples, or for Jesus's brother James, or for Mary and Joseph, or for John the Baptist, or for Jude (the other brother of Jesus), or for the person believed to be possessed by a "Legion" of daemons, or for Barnabas, or for Stephen, or for Timothy, or for Tertius (the person who wrote Romans for Paul), or for Priscilla and Aquila, or for Apollos, or for Silas, or for "John the elder", or for any of the other influential characters in the first century Christian church; but statistically speaking one in four of them suffered from a mental illness.

We also know a lot more about human psychology now than in Biblical times, for instance we know that memory is imperfect, that it can be manipulated, that it can be implanted whether by accident or by deliberate act, we also know that whether a witnesses is absolutely confident or not about an event or detail it is not correlated to what is factual and inaccurate, we now know all witness statements contain inaccuracies. We know all people have false memories - memories of events or actions etc. that never actually occurred. The Bible doesn't give us any eye-witness statements to the life of Jesus, although we do have eye-witnesses to the early first century church in at least "Luke" and Paul (and probably James and Jude as well). Such evidence as the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John could not be considered contemporary since they were written at least 20 years after the death of Jesus. Many theologians believe they were all written more than 50 years after the death of Jesus! They also don't count as eye-witness because the eye witnesses did not write them, therefore their quality as testimony is "hearsay" - ie it would be of no value or inadmissible in a modern legal context. Some of it may be, and probably is accurate. Some of it may not, and probably isn't accurate. It's impossible to know for sure how much is accurate and how much is inaccurate.

Where there are teachings of Jesus that are written and clearly came from differing witnesses we would generally accept those as having happened. So for instance, anything that happens in John AND at least one of the synoptic gospels. This includes, of course, the death of Jesus by crucifixion. Whether there was a resurrection, however, is a debatable point since such supposition could easily have originated from a single source, a person who believed he had seen a ghost or vision of Jesus and had subsequently convinced another person that they too had seen something similar. Every year there are millions of people across the globe who believe they see ghosts, or hear from their loved ones that have passed on. So your theory that there was a resurrection is perfectly valid, but it's also perfectly possible that there wasn't. Either could be the case, neither of us can know for certain.

[genkaus]

As to the common ground, my approach would be this: Christianity is a faith, and as it is a faith it requires believing in something you can't prove or disprove. As that is the case, Christians may be wrong, but also non-Christians may be wrong, neither side has absolute proof. For some people, they are willing to believe in their faith, and for others they are not, and in either case people are entitled to make up their own minds to come to their own beliefs.

Putting aside the assertion of placing your beliefs beyond proof and ridiculous notions of absolute proof - all it comes down to is this: No one is denying you the right to make up your own mind about what you believe. You are being denied the right to impose your beliefs on others. And sorry, there is no common ground where that is concerned.

---

So your theory that there was a resurrection is perfectly valid, but it's also perfectly possible that there wasn't. Either could be the case, neither of us can know for certain.

Without any credible evidence for events that clearly go against the known laws of nature, why would anyone consider the theory valid?

[Aractus]

Without any credible evidence for events that clearly go against the known laws of nature, why would anyone consider the theory valid?

The textual basis for the resurrection in the Bible originates from at least two different witness statements. As I just mentioned there's no guarantee that they are independent, but there's no proof that they aren't either. A theory doesn't have to be true to be a valid theory, on the contrary it has to be falsifiable.

The theory that Jesus was resurrected is a valid theory, and it's falsifiable. The theory that Jesus was not resurrected is also a valid, falsifiable theory. Thus either is a valid theory, and neither can be proven. However there is, certainly, evidence for either case and the quality of that evidence is debatable.

But... it's also inconsequential since Christianity is a faith-based belief and doesn't require proof. That is to say that Christians don't need to prove their claim to believe it, they believe it because they have faith.

[genkaus]

The textual basis for the resurrection in the Bible originates from at least two different witness statements. As I just mentioned there's no guarantee that they are independent, but there's no proof that they aren't either.

You mentioned more than that - you had a whole laundry list as to why those witness statements are not credible.

A theory doesn't have to be true to be a valid theory, on the contrary it has to be falsifiable.

Actually, it does. Or more specifically, it needs to have credible evidence supporting it. At best what you have here is a valid hypothesis.

The theory that Jesus was resurrected is a valid theory, and it's falsifiable.

Given that it doesn't have any credible evidence supporting it....

The theory that Jesus was not resurrected is also a valid, falsifiable theory.

It has more evidentiary support for it than the other one - specifically that as a general rule, the dead don't get up after three days.

Thus either is a valid theory, and neither can be proven.

Absolute proof is a nonsensical notion - evidence can be and should be presented for both.

However there is, certainly, evidence for either case and the quality of that evidence is debatable.

What debate? You argued - very persuasively, I might add - that evidence for the position is not credible. I agree. Debate over.

But... it's also inconsequential since Christianity is a faith-based belief and doesn't require proof. That is to say that Christians don't need to prove their claim to believe it, they believe it because they have faith.

And if they limit themselves to that, that would be fine. But if they want to convince others and impose those beliefs on others, then they need actual proof.

[Aractus]

You mentioned more than that - you had a whole laundry list as to why those witness statements are not credible.

I had a list that can be used for ANY witness. That's why one, uncorroborated, witness statement in court is not proof even if that witness is 100% certain of the facts he's remembering. But it is evidence.

To be clear, I gave my reasons why in my opinion they may not be credible. I don't know for certain, and other people are certainly entitled to make up their own minds.

Actually, it does. Or more specifically, it needs to have credible evidence supporting it. At best what you have here is a valid hypothesis.

A valid hypothesis is synonymous with the term "valid theory". The theory of Newtonian Mechanics is a valid theory, it's even useful we still use it today, however that doesn't make it "truth" or for that matter correct.

Given that it doesn't have any credible evidence supporting it....

For the resurrection? No, but there's credible evidence for other things.

But we're getting ahead of ourselves, I was simply giving an example. There's plenty of common ground to agree on without polarising yourself is my main argument. The theory that the OT was invented "as a way to try to control society" is a valid theory, however it has little to no evidence. Just like say the theory that the Egyptian Pyramids were built by slaves is a valid theory, however the evidence for it is extremely weak and the evidence that they were built by workers is quite strong (they excavated some of their graves for some of the pyramids). Virtually everyone agrees that Jesus did exist, that he called disciples and that he died on the cross. Christians believe the nativity and the resurrection and that all of the events regarding him are accurate.

It has more evidentiary support for it than the other one - specifically that as a general rule, the dead don't get up after three days.

That's not 100% the case. A theory can be partially correct, for instance it could be correct that Jesus survived the resurrection somehow and this was kept secret. That eventuality would mean that there was a resurrection of sorts, but not in the way the Bible describes it. So there's not exactly evidence, let's say, that Jesus was reburied, or that his body was stolen or that he survived the crucifixion - those are the other possibilities and there's an absence of evidence for them. But just because there's an absence doesn't make those theories invalid, nor does it mean any are improbable. I'd simply say that there's certainly not convincing evidence given that the resurrection is both: a. an historical event AND b. a supernatural event.

What debate? You argued - very persuasively, I might add - that evidence for the position is not credible. I agree. Debate over.

Nonsense, that debate would mean that every single uncorroborated witness statement made in court is untrustworthy. It's simply a statement of fact that a. the witnesses did not directly relate their testimony and b. there's no way of knowing the quality of the testimony.

And if they limit themselves to that, that would be fine. But if they want to convince others and impose those beliefs on others, then they need actual proof.

I don't think most Christians want to impose their beliefs upon others. I think "ethical vegans", generally speaking, want to impose their beliefs on others. I mean it would certainly be true in certain contexts and for some Christians. But I don't think saying that to an ordinary Christian is a good argument, I think it would be better to say you recognise they don't want to impose their beliefs upon others and that since they would agree their beliefs whether real or unreal are based on faith and not provable facts there's no point in them trying to prove their case to you. You could also say that you agree that freedom of religion and beliefs is a valuable freedom - I think nearly all Christians would agree with that statement.

[Elskidor]

The most I have to deal with is my sister and brother-in-law. They are Wiccan or something like that, and although they've never said anything, there is uncomfortable silence when my atheistic views are brought up. Hardly the end of the world, but I'm sure it's more of a matter of them wondering if I judge them. My wife's family is to stupid to worry about. They are all self proclaimed Catholics that say one prayer a year at Easter, that they all loathe, and are drug addicts, thieves and hypocrites. I think they just like to hang a picture of Jesus on the wall to assure they can behave however they wish and still get into heaven.

I've been fortune not to have been born into one of those uber psychotic families.

[Aractus]

They are all self proclaimed Catholics that say one prayer a year at Easter, that they all loathe, and are drug addicts, thieves and hypocrites.

They're no more hypocritical than atheist drug-addict thieves. It's a shame that your in-laws suffer those problems.