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

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

I don't know how you can wake up in the morning, smell the roses and think man this was one amazing accident.

 

[Ken-1122]

I don't know how you can wake up in the morning, smell the roses and think man this was one amazing accident.

I don't think that way. Just because I don't think your idea of God is responsible, doesn't mean I think everything was an accident.

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

Just because I don't think your idea of God is responsible, doesn't mean I think everything was an accident.

Either God created it, or chance. What do you think it was then if everything wasn't an accident?

 

[Gene2memE]

“The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality of happiness, and by no means a necessity of life.”

― George Bernard Shaw

 

[Gene2memE]

So its better to increase suffering in the world to hold on to your lack of belief?

That's fundamentally a false dichotomy.

There's nothing about atheism that necessitates an increase in suffering, either on a personal or a societal level.

Atheism is a single response to a single question ('do you accept the claim that same god exists?'). There is nothing about answering 'No' to that which precludes them from improving the well being of themselves, their families, their friends or that of the environment.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

How would me believing in christianity, improve my well being - let alone the well-being of others?

And could the same increase in well-being be reached through another, secular, way?

In any case: my answer is no.
The consequences of holding a belief, is not a good reason to hold to that belief.
One should believe things because one is rationally convinced of its accuracy, not because it gives you benefit.

When it comes to holding beliefs, I care about what is actually true, not about what feels good.

And if this is the case, even if someone is 100% certain God doesn't exist. Shouldn't they still believe in God?

That makes no sense at all.
How do you believe something that you know is wrong?

It's a real question. How do you physically do that?
I can't. Can you start believing in santa right here, right now?
Off course you can't. Because "belief" doesn't work like that.

Because its clearly what is best for them and everyone else

Is it?
You've asserted this several times now. I'm curious if you can actually explain it as well. So far, it seems no more then some what-if hypothetical with no connection to reality at all.

But yes, even if you could demonstrate an increase in well-being, then still I wouldn't believe. For the simple reason that I can't "choose" what to believe like I can choose which pants to wear today.

I can only believe that which has convinced me.
A statistic showing that theists are "happier" or "healthier" or "wealtier" or whatever, is not going to convince me that what they believe is also correct.

It will only tell me that their beliefs have some kind of psychological effect that results in those statistics. I might try and find out what it is, so that I can accomplish the same benefits, through some other way. And if that can't be done, then though luck.

I'ld still have the same reasons for believing as before being shown the statistics: none.

To convince me that a claim is accurate, you'ld need to present demonstrable evidence in support of it. What the psychological effect is of holding the belief, is irrelevant to wheter or not the belief is accurate.

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?

How on earth could that ever be the case?
What-if questions can be fun and all, but this is kind of meaningless.

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

Yes, you believe in believing, I got that already.

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?

Because there are other paths that accomplish the same thing, which doesn't require you to engage in unjustified irrational beliefs.

 

[KCfromNC]

Either God created it, or chance. What do you think it was then if everything wasn't an accident?

Add "false dilemma" to the argument from consequence this thread is based on. Any other logical fallacies to add?

 

[DogmaHunter]

But what is important is that they cannot take these things with them into eternity when their life is over.

Off course, it's not important to atheists, because as far as atheists are concerned, death means "game over".

The bottom line, and the challenge for Christians is to convince them that there is a living God out there who create them in His own image. Everything else will fall on deaf ears

Empty claims of gods existing, will also fall on deaf ears.
You'ld have to demonstrate your claims...

and only the Holy Spirit can do that.

Then why are christians even bothering?

 

[DogmaHunter]

If Christianity is false than it's the greatest lie in human history

Not any greater or smaller then the "lie" of any other religion that is / has been believed in large scales.

Necessarily at least 99.99% of all those religions are false, since they are mutually exclusive.
There's nothing about christianity that makes it "more special" then the rest of them.

As for the rest, you really can't come up with things that used to be believed by as good as all humans, which turned out completely false? It's not that hard you know.

People, the masses, are wrong all the time and that's okay - as long as they alter their views when it becomes clear that they are wrong.

Religious people though, tend to not alter their views, regardless of contradicting evidence. That's kind of the thing with religious dogma....

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.

Sure. So how do you propose to find out if it's true or false?

We have 2000 years of evidence that Christianity has worked

How so? Define "worked"?
Because if given the choice: to live in a 21st century secular society or, I dunno, any theocracy ever (medieval London, anyone?)... the choice is rather ridiculously easy....

but no evidence an society based on atheism

There's no such thing as a society "based on atheism".
At best, you could say a society "not based on a state imposed religion", which would be the wonderfull secular democracies we are currently living in....

Given that standards of living, throughout human history, have NEVER been as high as in such a society, I think it's safe to say that secularism works better then anything tried before it.

will work since it offer no type of ethics on it's own.

Off course it doesn't... Atheism is a single position on a single issue. It tells you nothing. There's no doctrines, no claims, not anything.... there's only the rejection of a claim of theism and that's it.

Atheism only leaves a vacuum for wilder beliefs to filled like the SJW, Islam,etc.

That makes zero sense.

Secularism has already showing signs of it's collapses.

Really? When did this happen?
Last I checked, secular countries still have the absolute highest standards of living in the world.

Atheism also collapses as it questions the very cognitive faculties of the naturalist.

This again makes no sense at all.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

Many were also Roman and Greek polytheists, jews, muslims, deists and atheists.

 

[DogmaHunter]

For one science.

Errr.... I hate to break it to you (actually, not really), but in a very real sense, science was kickstarted by muslims in the middle east during Islam's so called Golden Age.

Then Al-Gezahli came along and ruined everything with his kalaam argument.
Then the epicenter of scientific inquiry moved over to the west.

And then, scientific progress really exploded during the age of enlightment. You now... that age when we pretty much kicked the church out of the sphere of public discourse and no longer presumed that reality had to agree with the bible.


In summary, I'ld dare say that science didn't took off thanks to christianity, but rather in spite of it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Gunpowder was invented by the Chinese.

Indeed.

But if I remember correctly (I could be wrong and too lazy to look it up now), the chinese used it for fireworks. It was when it was brought to the west that it received military application.

 

[Ken-1122]

Either God created it, or chance. What do you think it was then if everything wasn't an accident?

You appear to make assumptions I do not. First of all there is a big difference between chance and accident. Chance has more to do with a random act; accident is when a planned event goes wrong.
But you also seem to assume a point in history when nothing (except your idea of God) existed, thus requiring creation. I don’t make such an assumption. I think we both agree something has always existed; we only disagree on what was it that has always existed. You believe your God has always existed; I believe it was something else.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Then why are christians even bothering?

Because the invitation is to all. Note that it is not a demand but an invitation, and everyone has the power to choose either way. Everyone has to hear the gospel and decide whether they believe it or not. God does not have to prove Himself or justify Himself to anyone. His attitude is believe in me, or not, you choose.

And if death is not the end of everything, and there happens to be a judgment, those who choose not to believe Him have no excuse, and if they complain that they were unfairly treated, the answer will be, "You made your choice, so too bad, how sad (for you)".

 

[jayem]

Either God created it, or chance. What do you think it was then if everything wasn't an accident?

So you're saying it's either your particular god (which totally ignores all the thousands of other god-concepts in the world.) Or it's completely accidental (which totally ignores a number of the best and most current cosmolgical models.) Do you really think those 2 are the only options? No offense meant, but that's extraordinarily biased, simplistic, and naive thinking.

 

[Rebecca12]

. . .and everyone has the power to choose either way. Everyone has to hear the gospel and decide whether they believe it or not. God does not have to prove Himself or justify Himself to anyone. His attitude is believe in me, or not, you choose.

Choice, choice, choice. It is a broken record on this thread. I have read the Bible. I can't make myself believe in something that makes no sense to me. I have NO CHOICE in the matter. Just like if you read the Koran it would make no sense to you and you would not be able to make yourself believe in the Koran. No difference whatsoever.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Choice, choice, choice. It is a broken record on this thread. I have read the Bible. I can't make myself believe in something that makes no sense to me. I have NO CHOICE in the matter. Just like if you read the Koran it would make no sense to you and you would not be able to make yourself believe in the Koran. No difference whatsoever.

You have made your choice already. You choose to be an atheist. You also choose not to believe in anything that does not make any sense to you. If Christianity is something that is spiritually discerned through divine revelation, then it is understandable that as a natural thinker who uses just your five senses to discern things, then the revelation about God and true Christianity is right outside of your present knowledge or ability to rationalise.

So, maybe because you have already made your choices about life, universe and everything, there may not be any further opportunity for you to choose any different, and so you may live your life and go into eternity at the end of it on the basis of your present choices.

If after five minutes after you are dead you realise that you made wrong choices, well, too bad, how sad.

 

[Rebecca12]

If after five minutes after you are dead you realise that you made wrong choices, well, too bad, how sad.

Well, that is rather flippant.

If there is "divine revelation," bring it on. I've never had it. So, it can't effect what I believe.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Well, that is rather flippant.

If there is "divine revelation," bring it on. I've never had it. So, it can't effect what I believe.

God looks at people's hearts and sees whether there is an inclination to believe in Him. He is not going to waste His time giving revelation to those who refuse to exercise faith in Him. He will keep presenting the gospel of Christ with the "believe it or not" clause. But as the Bible says, "God will not always strive with man". What this means is there is a limit to how many times He will give the invitation to believe the gospel. Then, as Romans says, He will give people up to their determined unbelief and sinfulness and bring them to judgment.

I might sound flippant, but it is very serious, because "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God", and if you are willing to take that chance, well, there's nothing anyone can do about it.

 

[comana]

God looks at people's hearts and sees whether there is an inclination to believe in Him. He is not going to waste His time giving revelation to those who refuse to exercise faith in Him. He will keep presenting the gospel of Christ with the "believe it or not" clause. But as the Bible says, "God will not always strive with man". What this means is there is a limit to how many times He will give the invitation to believe the gospel. Then, as Romans says, He will give people up to their determined unbelief and sinfulness and bring them to judgment.

I might sound flippant, but it is very serious, because "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God", and if you are willing to take that chance, well, there's nothing anyone can do about it.

You claim to know quite a lot of God's mind and inclinations. I am wondering though why you describe him with human frustrations and the concept of "wasting time" when he supposedly exists outside of time. Why place human limitations on an all-knowing, unlimited being. Why would such a being not provide unlimited, clear direction towards belief? Why even demand belief?