Should atheists believe in the God of christianity if...

[ananda]

As it's impacted on Western Civilizations that gave it the edge.

The edge ... for what?

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

The edge ... for what?

Clearly the west has more power, resources etc than the east.

 

[Smidlee]

The edge ... for what?

For one science.

 

[ananda]

Clearly the west has more power, resources etc than the east.

For one science.

Christianity brought worldly power & resources, and science ... to what ethical end, however?

 

[Rebecca12]

I am sorry, but the question goes nowhere helpful. You can't believe something because you should. A belief is a result, not something you do.

 

[jayem]

As it's impacted on Western Civilizations that gave it the edge. We all stand on the shoulders of giants and many were no doubt Christians.

Firstly, let's separate Christianity as a personal belief from organized Christianity. Which are churches and denominations. Whatever progress Western civilization has made has resulted despite organized Christianity--not because of it. Established Christian churches tolerated scientific advancement only when it supported, or was neutral regarding religious doctrines. Some churches (and Christian believers) still oppose science that contradicts their biblical worldviews. We see it in these forums. But that's a losing battle. The arc of history in the developed world is moving--even if slowly--away from myth and superstition, and towards objectivity and analytical thinking.

 

[Ana the Ist]

As CS Lewis wrote Christianity is based on facts. Either these facts are true or they are false.

Facts cannot be false, by definition. I think you're either misquoting CS Lewis, or he's not too bright.

If Christianity is false than it's the greatest lie in human history which no honest person would want to accept no matter how helpful it may be. If true then it's the greatest of all truths and any honest person would believe it no matter if it's no help at all.

I think the greatest lie is "nah...you don't look fat in those."

We have 2000 years of evidence that Christianity has worked but no evidence an society based on atheism will work since it offer no type of ethics on it's own.

Has worked? You're crediting 2000 years of human history to "christianity"?

I think it's safe to say there were some other things "at work".

Atheism only leaves a vacuum for wilder beliefs to filled like the SJW, Islam,etc.
Secularism has already showing signs of it's collapses. Atheism also collapses as it questions the very cognitive faculties of the naturalist.

Yup....I bet you never question your cognitive faculties, and look how well it's worked out for you. You have 2000 years of christianity to thank for that.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Clearly the west has more power, resources etc than the east.

I don't know where you're getting that from....

Arguably, for about 4000 plus years ending around the 1300-1400s, China was the most advanced and powerful "nation" in the world.

Western Europe did eventually surpass everyone else, but it's not because of resources or christianity...but mainly a period of intellectual growth known as the Enlightenment which was a result of recovering the teachings of Aristotle and the advancement of science.

Geography had more to do with it than christianity.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The arc of history in the developed world is moving--even if slowly--away from myth and superstition, and towards objectivity and analytical thinking.

Before the advent of social media, I would have agreed with this statement.

The problem now is that idiots and experts alike are judged by the same standard...popularity. This may not be leading us back towards myth and superstition...but I'd argue that it's pushing us towards emotional reasoning.

 

[Nithavela]

As it's impacted on Western Civilizations that gave it the edge. We all stand on the shoulders of giants and many were no doubt Christians.

I think gunpowder and general ruthlessness played a far bigger role in cementing western influence than christianity.

 

[Strathos]

I think gunpowder and general ruthlessness played a far bigger role in cementing western influence than christianity.

Gunpowder was invented by the Chinese.

 

[keith99]

I think gunpowder and general ruthlessness played a far bigger role in cementing western influence than christianity.

Sorry, gunpowder is an invention of the East, not the West and by most measures the East is more ruthless.

The one thing I can think of where the West has a significant advantage is that we seem far more willing to see the value of what another society has done and incorporate into ours. And much of the time build upon it.

 

[Nithavela]

Gunpowder was invented by the Chinese.

Sorry, gunpowder is an invention of the East, not the West

Did I say anywhere that the west invented gunpowder?

 

[Smidlee]

Facts cannot be false, by definition. I think you're either misquoting CS Lewis, or he's not too bright.

No joke but language doesn't always strictly go by definitions. For example from Reader Digest:
51 Facts That Are Actually False | Reader's Digest

 

[Allandavid]

It improves their well being, their families well being, their friends well being, the environments well being?

Now a quick answer one would say is yes but it doesn't. And I think this is where the discussion really begins. Because theres no question, even among atheists who were former christians they admit to missing or at least no longer having certain benefits that christianity gave them. So I don't think it's too hard to imagine it being actually true that it could not only improve their well being, but their families, their friends, the environment etc. And if this is the case, even if someone is 100% certain God doesn't exist. Shouldn't they still believe in God? Because its clearly what is best for them and everyone else. Or you can ask another question which is should an atheist remain an atheist even when this results in the worst possible suffering for them and every thing else in the universe?

I ask this because I believe that belief in God, being a christian does actually improve your well being. Which can lead to a trickle down effect across the world. Because atheists always try to say they want to behave in a way in which there is the least amount of suffering, if belief in God does lead to the least amount of suffering then shouldn't they believe?

Extremely flawed. No one believes in things through choice...

 

[Eudaimonist]

It improves their well being, their families well being, their friends well being, the environments well being?

I suppose I could ask if Christians should become atheists if the above were the case in the other direction. My response is the same -- everyone should have integrity and the courage of their convictions.

Because theres no question, even among atheists who were former christians they admit to missing or at least no longer having certain benefits that christianity gave them.

There's also no question that some atheists have cited benefits from deconverting from Christianity and becoming atheists. *shrug*

I ask this because I believe that belief in God, being a christian does actually improve your well being.

Okay, but in my view it depends on individual circumstances and precisely how one's worldview has changed.

BTW, some of the most depressed people I've ever known have been Christians.

Which can lead to a trickle down effect across the world.

And a trickled on effect across the world. There are likely to be positives and negatives.

Because atheists always try to say they want to behave in a way in which there is the least amount of suffering if belief in God does lead to the least amount of suffering then shouldn't they believe?

I don't base my beliefs, even my ethical views, on utilitarian calculations.

My epistemology is based on understanding reality for what it is through a rational process of thought. While perhaps suffering can be reduced by understanding productive ways to deal with the challenges of reality, the reduction of suffering isn't the goal of knowledge-seeking. Knowledge of reality is.

As for ethics, the goal for any individual is to flourish as a rational and social being. While a side-effect of this may be some reduction of suffering in the world, that too isn't the goal of ethical action, and certainly not beliefs regarding ethics (see epistemology above).


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

that would be a rather erroneous and ineffectual reason for anyone to come to faith in Christ.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No joke but language doesn't always strictly go by definitions. For example from Reader Digest:
51 Facts That Are Actually False | Reader's Digest

Yeah...occasionally people use the wrong words.

 

[Ana the Ist]

And a trickled on effect across the world.

Lol

 

[Sketcher]

Firstly, let's separate Christianity as a personal belief from organized Christianity. Which are churches and denominations. Whatever progress Western civilization has made has resulted despite organized Christianity--not because of it.

If we ignore the benefits to social cohesion and stability that it provided.

Extremely flawed. No one believes in things through choice...

If one is presented with evidence for something, and they choose not to believe it, that's a choice. If refusing to acknowledge facts is a choice, then believing is also a choice.