If atheism is true would you want to know?

[cloudyday2]

If you don't want to know the Truth, whatever it may be, you're a mindless cretin.

In any event, the way you have defined "atheism" is essentially "deism."

No, I want to include deism, atheism, agnosticism, and also the belief in an active but feckless and sneaky God. All those people will conclude that gods are a waste of time.

 

[cloudyday2]

The door-to-door vacuum peddler is usually no danger at all to their children, their souls, their parents, their friends, their neighbors, or their assembly.

Most religions and most practices are pernicious (death dealing) thus dangerous to everyone.

What religions are you thinking about? Of course the Aztecs sacrificed human to make the sun rise, and there are suicide bombers and things. Not sure what you mean?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

What religions are you thinking about? Of course the Aztecs sacrificed human to make the sun rise, and there are suicide bombers and things. Not sure what you mean?

All of them. They are all going to be gone soon, and none of them offer a way to eternal life. Thus all who follow the blind, fall into the pit (eternally).

 

[cloudyday2]

All of them. They are all going to be gone soon, and none of them offer a way to eternal life. Thus all who follow the blind, fall into the pit (eternally).

Let's say Christianity was not true. What would you gain by knowing that Christianity was not true? You could guiltlessly hate your neighbor and you could sleep-in on Sunday morning, but overall you would not gain much by knowing that Christianity was not true. You would also be forced to reconstruct your sense of purpose and your ideas about right and wrong if you learned that Christianity was not true.

On balance would you really want to know if Christianity was not true? You make a good case that if Christianity was true a person should want to know that, but what about the opposite?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Let's say Christianity was not true. What would you gain by knowing that Christianity was not true?

If it was not true, then no one has any hope at all, and we are most foolish of all men.

Since Jesus is the one and only way to eternal life, no one has to die unless they want to.

 

[cloudyday2]

If it was not true, then no one has any hope at all, and we are most foolish of all men.

But if you have no real hope wouldn't you want to keep your false hope? Isn't false hope just as beneficial as real hope until the hope fails to deliver? And the hope of Christianity is after death, so you could go to death with your hope still intact.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

But if you have no real hope wouldn't you want to keep your false hope? Isn't false hope just as beneficial as real hope until the hope fails to deliver? And the hope of Christianity is after death, so you could go to death with your hope still intact.

Nope.
I only want the truth, and Jesus is Truth. That's extravagantly gracious and more than generous for all men who believe.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

But if you have no real hope wouldn't you want to keep your false hope? Isn't false hope just as beneficial as real hope until the hope fails to deliver? And the hope of Christianity is after death, so you could go to death with your hope still intact.

Jesus makes us a NEW CREATION TODAY (already, TODAY, not some time by and by) ....
so the "benefits" of following Him and being born again START TODAY!

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

(RIGHTEOUSNESS< PEACE< and JOY< ) that no one can take away ! !!

 

[AvisG]

No, I want to include deism, atheism, agnosticism, and also the belief in an active but feckless and sneaky God. All those people will conclude that gods are a waste of time.

Agnosticism, unless one were so hardened into agnosticism that he or she no longer cared, would not necessarily conclude that. An honest agnostic would likely conclude that continuing the search for Truth, wherever it might lead, was not a waste of time.

My point is simply: If someone would prefer the la-la land of false answers to the ultimate metaphysical questions to true answers, whatever they may be, he or she is a mindless dolt. Such a "religion" is no more a religion than is collecting stamps; it isn't even concerned with the answers to the ultimate questions. To use your language, it is concluding that metaphysical truth is a "waste of time."

 

[cloudyday2]

Agnosticism, unless one were so hardened into agnosticism that he or she no longer cared, would not necessarily conclude that. An honest agnostic would likely conclude that continuing the search for Truth, wherever it might lead, was not a waste of time.

In my conversations with agnostics I have found that most of them have little interest in gods. Most atheists will say "show me the evidence" rather than actively searching for evidence themselves, and that is also the position of most agnostics. They view the search for gods as a waste of time.

My point is simply: If someone would prefer the la-la land of false answers to the ultimate metaphysical questions to true answers, whatever they may be, he or she is a mindless dolt. Such a "religion" is no more a religion than is collecting stamps; it isn't even concerned with the answers to the ultimate questions. To use your language, it is concluding that metaphysical truth is a "waste of time."

If believing a false answer can give you the same benefits as believing a true answer, and if there is no true answer available, then isn't the fool who believes the false answer the winner over the wise who believe nothing?

Of course that leads to another issue: what is truth? Maybe a religion is literally false but in spite of that a person who believes this religion gets most of the benefits promised? Is that religion false or true?

 

[cloudyday2]

@awitch and @Zoness , here is a question. I am basically proposing in this thread that believing and practiciing a false religion can be better than having no religion. However, it seems that many pagans do not actually believe in their religions. These pagans apparently find that practicing a religion that is false and that they do not believe can be better than having no religion. Do you agree? (You both have some experience with paganism.)

I have also read that behaving as though you believe something can sometimes create belief. An atheist blogger described how he burns incense to cleanse his home when he feels things are off and over time he believes in a strange way that it works.

 

[AvisG]

In my conversations with agnostics I have found that most of them have little interest in gods. Most atheists will say "show me the evidence" rather than actively searching for evidence themselves, and that is also the position of most agnostics. They view the search for gods as a waste of time.

Most agnostics are "shrug" agnostics - "Eh, I don't know" (shrug). Most atheists say "Show me the evidence" so they can look up the appropriate snarly response in their Atheist Playbook. Across the whole spectrum of atheists, agnostics and believers, few have any real interest in whether what they sorta kinda believe bears any relationship to metaphysical Truth. Most people are just looking for a safe and comfortable landing spot for social, economic or other reasons unrelated to metaphysical Truth.

If believing a false answer can give you the same benefits as believing a true answer, and if there is no true answer available, then isn't the fool who believes the false answer the winner over the wise who believe nothing?

That might be true if (1) you thought the only purpose of belief were to "give you benefits" and (2) you assumed that those who believe nothing or have no interest in metaphysical Truth derive no benefits from their positions. I'm sure an atheist could describe all sorts of benefits he believes he derives from not being saddled with a wrathful God watching his every move. He's liberated to indulge in anything and everything that strikes his fancy - how much more "beneficial" could any belief system be than that?

Of course that leads to another issue: what is truth? Maybe a religion is literally false but in spite of that a person who believes this religion gets most of the benefits promised? Is that religion false or true?

The ultimate metaphysical questions do have answers that are ontologically True. We cannot know those answers this side of the grave, but we can diligently attempt to get as close to them as we can. The answers we derive, tentative as they may be, will inform and guide every aspect of our earthly lives. The naturalistic/materialistic/atheistic paradigm may be ontologically True, fundamentalist Christianity likewise may be ontologically True - but I think it makes a vast difference whether we adopt one or the other because a diligent quest has led us to conclude that its the closest approximation of Truth or because we merely prefer the perceived "benefits."

What "benefits" one derives from one's belief system is almost entirely subjective. A false religion is not, in fact, true regardless of what benefits its adherents think they derive or even do derive. (This is one of the selling points of Christianity. It's so completely contrary to what most people would prefer to believe, so counterintuitive, that it's hard to believe anyone would have invented it.)

There is only one metaphysical Truth. My interest is in getting as close to it as I can, regardless of where the quest leads me. Supposed "benefits" are not going to influence my thinking.

 

[cloudyday2]

Across the whole spectrum of atheists, agnostics and believers, few have any real interest in whether what they sorta kinda believe bears any relationship to metaphysical Truth. Most people are just looking for a safe and comfortable landing spot for social, economic or other reasons unrelated to metaphysical Truth.

Very true, but what else can we do? There are many possibilities, so the probability that our belief will be metaphysical truth is tiny. On top of that, the probability that our belief matters is also tiny. Christianity is a rare religion in thinking that belief matters. So why should anybody who is comfortable with their beliefs want new information that makes those beliefs untenable? I could go to all the Christians in my life and tell them all the reasons they should disbelieve. What would be gained? I don't think I gained anything by losing faith, and I doubt that others would gain anything. There are exceptions of course.

 

[awitch]

@awitch and @Zoness , here is a question. I am basically proposing in this thread that believing and practiciing a false religion can be better than having no religion. However, it seems that many pagans do not actually believe in their religions. These pagans apparently find that practicing a religion that is false and that they do not believe can be better than having no religion. Do you agree? (You both have some experience with paganism.)

I have also read that behaving as though you believe something can sometimes create belief. An atheist blogger described how he burns incense to cleanse his home when he feels things are off and over time he believes in a strange way that it works.

I would say I do believe in my religion, but it doesn't need to be true. Like any religion, it fills a psychological need, but mine doesn't change anything if it's not true (which it probably isn't). Other religions establish god's expectations on how people are to live so if you cross out god, then much of that life might be wasted time. Paganism is more about seeing the world and you're place in it, mixed with self expression and a celebration of creativity. Cross out our gods, and we can still party.

I believe there is something, we'll call it "divinity", and I project my spiritual beliefs onto it, and it meets me halfway. It works for me, but there's no guarantee it works for anyone else and no one should feel pressured to try it. In that sense, I don't think an atheist (or anyone of any other religion) is necessarily going to be better in any way if they started to follow the path. They can if they want to, but there's no requirement.

 

[cloudyday2]

Nope.
I only want the truth, and Jesus is Truth. That's extravagantly gracious and more than generous for all men who believe.

When the gospel had Jesus say "I am the Truth" what do you think that meant? I imagine it was a concept from Hellenistic philosophies similar to "the Logos/Word". I doubt that "I only want the truth, and Jesus is Truth" makes any more sense than "I only want the word, and Jesus is Word". When the gospel Jesus said "I am the Truth" he was probably claiming to be an aspect of God. The Hellenistic philosophers imagined an ultimate incomprehensible god spawning evermore comprehensible gods/manifestations. "the Logos" was one of these more accessible forms of God, and I imagine "the Truth" was another.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Strictly speaking, we cannot know anything. All knowledge is either a circular proposition, an axiom, contingent on other factors that progress infinitely, relative, or can be dissented. These are the five tropes of Agrippa, that really can't be beat.

If we can be sure that there is no God, then that knowledge must arise by one of these methods, and is therefore still unsure. Frankly, the proposition is similar to a 'married bachelor' in its logical incoherence.

Essentially Religion tends to assert itself as an axiomatic truth, in Christianity as a Revealed one - hence the stress on having Faith. Plato's cave springs to mind. If there is no God, it would be utterly impossible to ever 'know' that, by any and all epistemologic ways. I would go so far as to say that the proposition must make one seriously doubt any and all knowledge, albeit sensory or even solipsistic.

 

[cloudyday2]

Strictly speaking, we cannot know anything. All knowledge is either a circular proposition, an axiom, contingent on other factors that progress infinitely, relative, or can be dissented. These are the five tropes of Agrippa, that really can't be beat.

If we can be sure that there is no God, then that knowledge must arise by one of these methods, and is therefore still unsure. Frankly, the proposition is similar to a 'married bachelor' in its logical incoherence.

Essentially Religion tends to assert itself as an axiomatic truth, in Christianity as a Revealed one - hence the stress on having Faith. Plato's cave springs to mind. If there is no God, it would be utterly impossible to ever 'know' that, by any and all epistemologic ways. I would go so far as to say that the proposition must make one seriously doubt any and all knowledge, albeit sensory or even solipsistic.

o.k. that's fine. whatever.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I imagine it was a concept from Hellenistic philosophies

You have posted a lot of errors, and little truth if any.

 

[cloudyday2]

You have posted a lot of errors, and little truth if any.

Errors are part of the process to solving problems.

Here is a Wikipedia article I found describing the role of "the Truth" in Gnosticism. It is difficult to know exactly what the author of the Gospel of John believed, but I suspect "the Truth" referred to an aeon. Of course Jesus claimed to be several different aeons - the Word, the Way, the Light, and the Truth. Maybe in claiming to be several aeons, Jesus was claiming to be the source of all those aeons - "the Bythos/the One"?
Aeon (Gnosticism) - Wikipedia

Here is another article describing some Jewish gnostic ideas:
GNOSTICISM - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Also, I didn't mean to be dismissive of the sentiment you expressed in your earlier post that Jesus was the only truth you wanted. That sentiment isn't necessarily in conflict with understanding "the Truth" as a gnostic aeon. I was trying to reexamine a Bible quote that we have all heard a million times ("I am the way, the light, and the truth") - a quote that maybe we only think we understand.