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

[Tinker Grey]

Seems to me that you're dealing above with absence rather than non existence. For instance, My arm , if it has not been amputated, cannot be anywhere that I am not nor can I be somewhere that my arm is not. Therefore if my arm is not in my house I am not in my house. The absence of me in my house is not proof of my non existence.

I'm not sure I can absolutely distinguish between absence and non-existence. Absence might be just "not here", but absent everywhere is non-existence.

This is not my argument but:
P1: If God exists, prayers are answered.
P2: Prayers are not answered.
C: God doesn't exist.

In this case, there isn't a difference between absence and non-existence since P1 assumes that God's location is irrelevant.

Now of course we can spend hours debating whether P1 is true then a few more hours debating P2. Then we can argue about what 'answered' means. But, the point is that if we were to agree on all the terms and on the truth of the propositions, then we would have proven the non-existence of the god presumed in the argument.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I'm not sure I can absolutely distinguish between absence and non-existence. Absence might be just "not here", but absent everywhere is non-existence.

This is not my argument but:
P1: If God exists, prayers are answered.
P2: Prayers are not answered.
C: God doesn't exist.

In this case, there isn't a difference between absence and non-existence since P1 assumes that God's location is irrelevant.

Now of course we can spend hours debating whether P1 is true then a few more hours debating P2. Then we can argue about what 'answered' means. But, the point is that if we were to agree on all the terms and on the truth of the propositions, then we would have proven the non-existence of the god presumed in the argument.

P1: If Tinker Grey exists, the sky is blue.
P2: The sky is not blue. Perhaps it is the middle of the night and the sky is black with white spots.
C: Tinker Grey doesn't exist.

If you assume P1 and P2 are correct I have proven you do not exist. And yet I am replying to a post of the non existent Tinker Grey as if such a poster actually existed. The point is that you are assuming non existence because you assume something unrelated to existence must be the case for there to be existence. That is an illogical form of proving something. Assumptions are supposed to be self evident or at least somewhat reasonable, not capricious.

 

[holo]

I do.

Ah, I was wondering what that "Other Religion" in your profile meant.

 

[Sketcher]

For 1000 years, from the 6th century up to the 16th, the Roman Catholic Church was Christianity. The only game in town. It's true that some literature, philosophy, and early science was kept alive in monasteries and universities, but little of it filtered down to the common man.

Which never would have happened at all if not for the stability and social cohesion that the church provided in that time. It also laid the foundation for the Renaissance. As a Protestant, I am acutely aware of the sins of the Roman Catholic Church, but I do have to give them credit for that.

 

[Nithavela]

Ah, I was wondering what that "Other Religion" in your profile meant.

Discordian, actually.

 

[Nithavela]

What percent true does being sure mean?

Surety is subjective, you can't treat it like it is objective.

People a couple of centuries ago were sure that thunder was caused by thor swinging his hammer.

 

[Strathos]

Seems to me that you're dealing above with absence rather than non existence. For instance, My arm , if it has not been amputated, cannot be anywhere that I am not nor can I be somewhere that my arm is not. Therefore if my arm is not in my house I am not in my house. The absence of me in my house is not proof of my non existence.

What if you're sticking your arm out the door but the rest of you is inside?

 

[jayem]

Which never would have happened at all if not for the stability and social cohesion that the church provided in that time.

But the downside of social cohesion is tribalism. All too often, religion promotes brotherhood only among like-minded believers. Non-believers are looked upon with suspicion and distrust--if not outright hostility. I'm sure you're aware of the hundreds of years of conflict--including wars-- which raged between Catholics and Protestants after the Reformation. And even if the violence was more about political and economic power, religion provides a convenient veneer of godliness to all manner of brutality. As Pascal said, men never do evil as cheerfully or as completely, as when they do it from religious conviction.

To me, the truest test of any religion's moral compass is its attitude toward non-believers who have no interest in converting. Islam is currently the worst offender. But Christianity's past record has been less than sterling.

 

[comana]

Most atheist do not claim they are sure that God does not exist. They simply say they do not believe that a god exists not that the are sure that a god does not exist. Makes it easier to not have to defend the position you are taking here, as the position that one does not believe that a god exists puts all the onus on the theist to prove the existence of God and avoids having to prove the non existence of a god. Perhaps you a have not gotten the memo on that?

It's not possible to prove deities do not exist so most atheists state that they have found no evidence to prove deities exist. So yes, if a believer states something exists the onus is on them to prove it.

 

[Sketcher]

But the downside of social cohesion is tribalism. All too often, religion promotes brotherhood only among like-minded believers. Non-believers are looked upon with suspicion and distrust--if not outright hostility. I'm sure you're aware of the hundreds of years of conflict--including wars-- which raged between Catholics and Protestants after the Reformation. And even if the violence was more about political and economic power, religion provides a convenient veneer of godliness to all manner of brutality. As Pascal said, men never do evil as cheerfully or as completely, as when they do it from religious conviction.

To me, the truest test of any religion's moral compass is its attitude toward non-believers who have no interest in converting. Islam is currently the worst offender. But Christianity's past record has been less than sterling.

But tribalism is an evolutionary trait that was, and now likely still is, necessary for human survival. It's something that just - is. Even the Communists weren't able to eliminate it - they had plenty of "others" to kill and persecute and try to dominate.

 

[Strathos]

Even the Communists weren't able to eliminate it

Why would you suggest they even tried? Loyalty to 'the state' is the primary goal of communist regimes.

 

[Sketcher]

Why would you suggest they even tried? Loyalty to 'the state' is the primary goal of communist regimes.

Exactly.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Tribalism is far more bad than good, IMO.

It might have had some value back in the days when the entire human population of the Earth was under 100,000, and a sudden attack by an enemy tribe required a rapid, violent response. Today, however, it just seems to be a negative that leads to collectivism and knee-jerk hate. Not a fan.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Allandavid]

There are people that choose to believe that the earth is flat despite all of the proof otherwise - so I don't buy the whole 'belief isn't a choice' thing either.

Because they observe other evidence which they analyse as being in favour of a flat earth.

You can’t choose to believe in something that flies in the face of your own observations and analyses...and stay sane...

 

[Allandavid]

Is that supposed to convince anyone?

Audience of one...

 

[Allandavid]

Would the statement "I am sure that god does not exist" then be illogical? As it is logically impossible to prove the non existence of anything, one would have to assume that it was illogical to be sure that something did not exist.

Correct...

 

[jayem]

Tribalism is far more bad than good, IMO.

It might have had some value back in the days when the entire human population of the Earth was under 100,000, and a sudden attack by an enemy tribe required a rapid, violent response. Today, however, it just seems to be a negative that leads to collectivism and knee-jerk hate. Not a fan.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Absolutely. I'm sure religion evolved because it reinforces tribal unity. Common beliefs, practices, and rituals maintain the group identity. (On a very small scale, this is what college fraternities do.) But it can be maladaptive in the modern developed world where people of different races, ethnicities, and backgrounds live and work together and must get along. Or at least must tolerate each other.

 

[Belk]

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?

I don't understand how you think people can believe in things they do not believe in. I don't know about you but for me belief is not something I choose to do.

 

[Rebecca12]

I don't understand how you think people can believe in things they do not believe in. I don't know about you but for me belief is not something I choose to do.

I have noted that Christians have the odd idea that you can simply chose to believe in God and Jesus. They often use vague terms like open your heart. They don't understand that belief is a result of all sorts of causes. What you were taught as a child. Your genetics. Your community. Your education. Everything that comes together to make you who you are and reason the way you
reason. I think a lot of it comes down to believing in contra-causal free will--that there is part of you that can make reasoned choices that is somehow free from external causes.

 

[Strathos]

Because they observe other evidence which they analyse as being in favour of a flat earth.

You can’t choose to believe in something that flies in the face of your own observations and analyses...and stay sane...

They mostly believe it because they want to be special and feel like they are privy to some big secret conspiracy that has the rest of the world fooled. It's based on what they want to believe, not evidence.