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

[Ken-1122]

What experience would you need to have a belief in God?

I'm curious about the opposite; what proof would you need, to accept that you are wrong about the existence of God?

 

[PreviouslySeeking...]

I honestly think that Christians are greatly mistaken in believing that everyone believes strongly in something. I'm probably still classified as Deist on my profile because it was the closest I could get to my complicated thought process which most certainly is not a belief.

I lean towards there being a creator type force & that's it. I don't believe that force knows me, is remotely concerned about me or the world. We don't have a relationship and I don't think that force wants or needs anything from me. More importantly, it wouldn't impact my life even if I suddenly knew if I were right or wrong. My belief in physics affects my life more that my concept of God.

My husband is a bit different because he was not born in a Western country or to a family with a Western religion. My husband has never pondered the existence of God at all. It is an utterly foreign concept that doesn't interest him. We attended our baby niece's baptism in a Catholic church awhile ago & I explained the beliefs behind everything because I was raised in religion and it was just nonsensical to him. Basically, he is unconcerned with whether or not God exists.

 

[the iconoclast]

Hm... why do you even ask?

I could give you a very explicit scenario that would at least start to "satisty" my need for a "proof" for your claim that the Christian God exists.

And I can already tell you: if I were to tell you this piece of "evidence" that I would require - which isn't excessive or inappropriate - all I would get is excuses why I won't get it.

Hey hey friend

Please excuse me, i have many conversations and cannot address this statement atm.

Dont worry, the time will come. I bet you are filled with anticipation

Cheers my dear

 

[the iconoclast]

My statement wasn't directed at you. It was in response to a different post:

Hey hey my dear

Well you answered a question i directed at someone else, lets call it even

Please indulge me. How am i totally wrong about salvation through christ?

Cheers

 

[the iconoclast]

I'm curious about the opposite; what proof would you need, to accept that you are wrong about the existence of God?

Hey hey

Wow!!!! u must really want a discussion with me. im not usually for jumping the gun on a discussion but your question is like a red rag to this bull.

How does one disprove God? Im interested, What have you got? Give me an example of 'proof' that would convince me?

What happens if i had an experience with God that effected me in such a way that His existance was certain?

Cheers

 

[the iconoclast]

Oh good grief...

I’ll try you once more....and then I’ve had enough of the tedium.

If you tell me that you have $5 million dollars in cases under your bed, but you can’t show me any evidence for your claim, I’m not going to accept it. I will withhold belief until you do.

However, I am not justified in saying that you definitely don’t have that money. There is a chance, no matter how tiny, that you might be telling the truth.

There...it’s as easy and straightforward as that. I can reject the claim for the existence of the money, while simultaneously not claiming its non-existence...

Now, unless you have something other than silly semantic games...?

Hey hey allandavid..

Would you come into my bedroom and see for your self?

Looks like you can defend your position. I may have another feather in my title soon. Kylie is looking very lonely by herself.

Cheers

 

[Allandavid]

Hey hey allandavid..

Would you come into my bedroom and see for your self?

Looks like you can defend your position. I may have another feather in my title soon. Kylie is looking very lonely by herself.

Cheers

Oh my.....this is what you classify as a “defeat”...??

You missed the part where I said that I will withhold belief “until you do”.

If you invite me in to look at your money, you will have provided the evidence...!

Good grief....take it....I’ve got some paint to watch drying...

 

[the iconoclast]

Good grief....take it....I’ve got some paint to watch drying...

Hey hey

That sounds boring. I gave you opportunity to defend your position. You could not so kylie now has a friend in my title.

What u think?

Wanna try and get it removed? Go back and answer the questions you ignored.

Cheers

 

[Allandavid]

Hey hey

That sounds boring. I gave you opportunity to defend your position. You could not so kylie now has a friend in my title.

What u think?

Wanna try and get it removed? Go back and answer the questions you ignored.

Cheers

No mate....you have fun in your little fantasy world. Off you go...

 

[the iconoclast]

No mate....you have fun in your little fantasy world. Off you go...

Hey hey allandavid.

In my fantasy world you and i are friends!
So you are giving up?

You cannot defend your position!

Cheers

 

[jayem]

Hey hey my dear

Well you answered a question i directed at someone else, lets call it even

Please indulge me. How am i totally wrong about salvation through christ?

Cheers

Honestly, I haven't really scrutinized all of these posts. Perhaps you can indulge me a bit. I know Christians can sometimes vary in their doctrinal views. What exactly is your belief about salvation?

 

[the iconoclast]

Honestly, I haven't really scrutinized all of these posts. Perhaps you can indulge me a bit. I know Christians can sometimes vary in their doctrinal views. What exactly is your belief about salvation?

Hey hey my new friend

Well lets see.

Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.
Acts 4:12 | NIVJesus

They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”
Acts 16:31 | NI

He has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time.
2 Timothy 1:9 | NI

Truly my soul finds rest in God;
my salvation comes from him.
Psalm 62:1 | NI

And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.
Acts 2:21 | NI

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 | NIV

For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.
Romans 10:10 | NIV



Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Mark 16:16 | NIV

What say you?

Cheers my dear

 

[Eudaimonist]

Our minds and souls will definitely be changed in Heaven, but your mistake is framing this as a bad thing. After all, you're a much different person than you were as a baby, and as a toddler, a child, a teenager, etc.

True, but at all stages I am fundamentally human.

In each case your mind expanded and your capacity for understanding increased.

The sort of change involved with not finding eternity boring is not of the same sort.

Your argument would mean it would be immoral for children to grow up.

No, those aren't the sort of changes I'm talking about. It would be more like choosing to become a cat.

I recommend reading this article to get a deeper view of what I mean:

There’s a big problem with immortality: it goes on and on | Aeon Essays

The key takeaway of the article is this:

The moral philosopher Samuel Scheffler at New York University has suggested that the real problem with a fantasy of immortality is that it doesn’t make sense as a coherent desire. Scheffler points out that human life is intimately structured by the fact that it has a fixed (even if usually unknown) time limit. We all start with a birth, then pass through many stages of life, before definitely ending in death. In turn, Scheffler argues, everything that we value – and thus can coherently desire in an essentially human life – must take as given the fact that we are temporally bounded beings. Sure, we can imagine what it would be like to be immortal, if we find that an amusing way to pass the time. But doing so will obscure a basic truth: that because death is a fixed fact, everything that human beings value makes sense only in light of our time being finite, our choices being limited, and our each getting only so many goes before it’s all over.

Scheffler’s case is thus not simply that immortality would make us miserable (although it probably would). It’s that, if we had it, we would cease to be distinctively human in the way that we currently are. But then, if we were somehow to attain immortality, it wouldn’t get us what we want from it: namely, for it to be some version of our human selves that lives forever. A desire for immortality is thus a paradox: it would frustrate itself were it ever to be achieved. In turn, Scheffler implies, once we’ve reflected carefully on this deep fact about ourselves, we should junk any residual desire to live forever that we might still have.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[the iconoclast]

Yep.

Hey hey

I mean the Christian God

Cheers

 

[loveofourlord]

True, but at all stages I am fundamentally human.



The sort of change involved with not finding eternity boring is not of the same sort.



No, those aren't the sort of changes I'm talking about. It would be more like choosing to become a cat.

I recommend reading this article to get a deeper view of what I mean:

There’s a big problem with immortality: it goes on and on | Aeon Essays

The key takeaway of the article is this:

The moral philosopher Samuel Scheffler at New York University has suggested that the real problem with a fantasy of immortality is that it doesn’t make sense as a coherent desire. Scheffler points out that human life is intimately structured by the fact that it has a fixed (even if usually unknown) time limit. We all start with a birth, then pass through many stages of life, before definitely ending in death. In turn, Scheffler argues, everything that we value – and thus can coherently desire in an essentially human life – must take as given the fact that we are temporally bounded beings. Sure, we can imagine what it would be like to be immortal, if we find that an amusing way to pass the time. But doing so will obscure a basic truth: that because death is a fixed fact, everything that human beings value makes sense only in light of our time being finite, our choices being limited, and our each getting only so many goes before it’s all over.

Scheffler’s case is thus not simply that immortality would make us miserable (although it probably would). It’s that, if we had it, we would cease to be distinctively human in the way that we currently are. But then, if we were somehow to attain immortality, it wouldn’t get us what we want from it: namely, for it to be some version of our human selves that lives forever. A desire for immortality is thus a paradox: it would frustrate itself were it ever to be achieved. In turn, Scheffler implies, once we’ve reflected carefully on this deep fact about ourselves, we should junk any residual desire to live forever that we might still have.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I have felt that immortality while alive is gaining more attraction, back in ancient greece where things changed slowly not so much, but now, there is always something new coming, new discoveries, games, movies, books, in the future if we last that long space and such, the further ahead we go there more things there are to keep from being bored of eternity heh in theory at least.

 

[Strathos]

True, but at all stages I am fundamentally human.

It's said that a dolphin is as intelligent as a 6 year old human. So is a newborn human less 'fundamentally human' than a dolphin?

The sort of change involved with not finding eternity boring is not of the same sort.

How can you say that if you admit that you lack the perspective to comprehend such a state in the first place?

No, those aren't the sort of changes I'm talking about. It would be more like choosing to become a cat.

Why is that comparison more valid than mine? You admit that you can't comprehend an eternal state of existence, yet you insist that it must be how you say it is.

Perhaps it works something like this:

When you first enter Heaven, you have a similar mind state as when you are alive. After, say, 200 years have passed (or however long it would take for your mind to become dissatisfied with immortality), you reach a new level of consciousness, which keeps you satisfied for 2000 more years. At that point, your mind expands again, keeping you content for another 20,000 years, and so on. Each change is finite, like the transition from childhood to adulthood, yet the process never ends, allowing you to enjoy eternity. It doesn't even have to be a series of discrete steps, but rather a continuous process. From day to day, year to year, you won't notice any difference.

 

[Spikey]

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

Really. How?

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?

Or you could stop asking stupid questions.

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?

Believe whatever you like. Just don't tell me that my non belief in any God of any description has a detrimental effect on my family, friends or the world in general.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Hey sir

So you believe the Christian God is man made. How do you know this?

Cheers

Personally, I don't know that. But I do consider it extremely likely.
And I base that on the fact that, in essence, it consists of the exact same type of claims as all other unfalsifiable deities ever invented by mankind.

Thousands of gods have been claimed by humans. Logically, not all of them can exist. At best, only one religion is correct. So right out the gates, 99% of all supernatural claims are false / invented by definition.

And since they all make the same kind of claims and are supported with the same kind of non-evidence, the most likely answer is that none of them exist and all of them are invented.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Hey sir

If you dont know in any conclusive manner then how did you come to your conclusion?

Cheers

He just told you. In the very post you are quoting...................

 

[DogmaHunter]

I was addressing this idea atheists have that they shouldn't have to deal with the consequences of their lack of belief, yet they all seem to believe that if God was perfect then they should have eternal life like believers even if they reject him.

I can't speak for others.
As for myself, I'ld say that any perfect, all-intelligent, all-knowing and benevolent deity would realise that it is absurd, and immensly immoral, to punish people for not holding irrational beliefs.

Because believing without evidence, is irrational.

The god you worship punishes rationality and rewards gullibilty.
That's not a god that I would define as being "just", "moral", "ethical", "all-intelligent", "benevolent" or whatever.

Quite the opposite, actually.

And it's not so much a punishment as it is a direct result of unbelief and a lack of salvation which leads to eternal life.

No, it is definatly a punishment.