So, if you are no longer a Christian...

[Silmarien]

I had to delete and rewrite this 5 different times, because I feared I would be banned if posted them as-is...

You are projecting.

I would tell you how I don't think life is absurd (and how it's an invalid statement), and address the rest of what you said... but I get the feeling you aren't interested in a finding out if what you think is true, merely confirming your biases.

If I said Christianity inherently entails that someone is delusional, etc, you would find that incredibly offensive and patronizing. Would you now?

Whether I believed those things or not, I most certainly would never say those things nor use it in a defense to an answer. I don't tell you what meaning you get from things, nor do I pretend.

I cannot help that you can't fathom not being a so pitifully morose if you were an atheist, nor your lack of creative ability.

But that doesn't excuse your ill chosen words.

My "ill chosen words" come straight out of the school of philosophy known as absurdism, as I would have thought obvious from the fact that I've alluded to it and mentioned it out right a number of times. The Absurd in this sense specifically refers to the human need to seek value and meaning in a universe devoid of either. Take a look at this article on Albert Camus if you'd like to learn more on the subject.

I am not saying that belief in atheism means that a particular person sees no meaning in life; I am saying that if atheism is true, then there is objectively no meaning in anything. None of this is a matter of projecting and biases--I did not get these views from the Christian community but the atheistic one.

 

[quatona]

My "ill chosen words" come straight out of the school of philosophy known as absurdism, as I would have thought obvious from the fact that I've alluded to it and mentioned it out right a number of times. The Absurd in this sense specifically refers to the human need to seek value and meaning in a universe devoid of either. Take a look at this article on Albert Camus if you'd like to learn more on the subject.

So I take it you are subscribing to the philosophy of Absurdism, and you are basing your answer to the hypothetical on this your view?

I am not saying that belief in atheism means that a particular person sees no meaning in life; I am saying that if atheism is true, then there is objectively no meaning in anything. None of this is a matter of projecting and biases--I did not get these views from the Christian community but the atheistic one.

You´d be mistaken if you assumed that Absurdism is a philosophy commonly held by non-theists. Of course, they don´t believe in any God-given meaning, but beyond that....

 

[Silmarien]

You´d be mistaken if you assumed that Absurdism is a philosophy commonly held by non-theists. Of course, they don´t believe in any God-given meaning, but beyond that....

I am a former non-theist. It doesn't really matter if others agree with me or not when the question is entirely subjective.

 

[quatona]

I am a former non-theist. It doesn't really matter if others agree with me or not when the question is entirely subjective.

Ok - if that´s the way you personally roll, what can I say? Except: It´s not like that to me.

 

[Silmarien]

Ok - if that´s the way you personally roll, what can I say? Except: It´s not like that to me.

Well, part of the problem is that I've come to associate atheism with a sort of dogmatic reductionism. Not all atheists are reductionists, but the ones who are tend to be loud and like to attack the ones who aren't. There's nothing quite so uplifting as Richard Dawkins waxing poetic about genes:

"They swarm in huge colonies, safe inside gigantic lumbering robots, sealed off from the outside world, communicating with it by tortuous indirect routes, manipulating it by remote control. They are in you and in me; they created us, body and mind; and their preservation is the ultimate rationale for our existence."

Sweet, sweet life in all of its multi-colored glory! I'm really not sure how anyone can say, "Yes, that," and not be an absurdist.

But I've come to a very "Grounds of Being" approach to the concept of God, and the idea of God-given meaning is a bit incoherent when you're channeling Neoplatonism. God as the source of meaning would be closer. Deny the source and everything becomes delusion; nothing is left but the ugliness that Dawkins and his ilk insist is all that exists at all.

 

[quatona]

Well, part of the problem is that I've come to associate atheism with a sort of dogmatic reductionism.

Ok, I can´t keep you from creating a problem for yourself.

Not all atheists are reductionists, but the ones who are tend to be loud and like to attack the ones who aren't.

Personally, I don´t listen to those "who tend to be loud and like to attack others" in any group when I want to understand the idea that forms this group.

There's nothing quite so uplifting as Richard Dawkins waxing poetic about genes:

"They swarm in huge colonies, safe inside gigantic lumbering robots, sealed off from the outside world, communicating with it by tortuous indirect routes, manipulating it by remote control. They are in you and in me; they created us, body and mind; and their preservation is the ultimate rationale for our existence."

Sweet, sweet life in all of its multi-colored glory!

Personally, I have never understood how having an explanation for something takes the beauty out of it - except when I watch an illusionist.

I'm really not sure how anyone can say, "Yes, that," and not be an absurdist.

Whereas I have no idea how one could possibly deduce absurdism from it.

But I've come to a very "Grounds of Being" approach to the concept of God, and the idea of God-given meaning is a bit incoherent when you're channeling Neoplatonism. God as the source of meaning would be closer. Deny the source and everything becomes delusion; nothing is left but the ugliness that Dawkins and his ilk insist is all that exists at all.

Personally, I find it a bit odd that something you find beautiful becomes ugly to you in case it doesn´t have a certain source.
But there isn´t much point in discussing aesthetics.

Whatever - I think the OP question comes down to "How would you think/feel if you thought/felt differently than you do?", and in trying to answer it you can´t avoid projecting your current mindset and value judgements upon the hypothetical state of mind.

 

[Chriliman]

I've never seen a poll or conversation about how Christians would "deal" with this scenario. More so, how they believe they would process it. I posted it here because Philosophy is closed.

I was curious to see what emotional (as best as I could list the options for) reaction a Christian would have if they found themselves an atheist, in the way many atheists do; it becomes apparent and thus accepted. If you found yourself an atheist, you would not have any reason to try an convert (back) to Christianity, nor argue for it.

If you cannot find yourself able to imagine/role-play the scenario (not how, whether it is plausible, etc), please don't comment or vote; it's not a debate. Please, no atheist (as you shouldn't be taking this poll anyway).

I'm genuinely curious as to how you think you would feel about it. If your feeling is not a choice (I'm just having to guess at possible feelings), feel free to elaborate. It's multiple choice.

P.S. Sorry if the options are not "good", but I don't know what to assume they could be.

Thanks!

Is an atheist someone who doesn't accept false claims about God? If so, I'm already one.

 

[bhsmte]

Is an atheist someone who doesn't accept false claims about God? If so, I'm already one.

Why don't we start with demonstrating a God exists first.

 

[Chriliman]

Why don't we start with demonstrating a God exists first.

God demonstrated himself over time through loving relationships. All I can do is love others as he does in the hopes that they'll receive it.

 

[PloverWing]

Is an atheist someone who doesn't accept false claims about God? If so, I'm already one.

I think an atheist is simply someone who does not believe that there is a God (or gods).

We all -- theists and atheists alike -- try not to accept false claims about God. We just disagree about which claims are false.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Someday we shall all die. If I as a Christian am wrong, then nothing will have come of it. I'll become dust, but will have lived a life devoted to a beautiful idea, of restoration and repentance, of redemption of a dark world. I have been an Atheist before, so I know the grass on that side is not particularly green, more ashen. I think @PloverWing said it well: Like Puddleglum, I am for Narnia even if there is no Narnia.

I also very much agree with @Silmarien who has spoken very cogently and patiently here, much better than I could have. The Neo-Darwinian views of cold genes responsible for all human altruism or goodness, I find abhorrent, negative and patently affirms Total Depravity. If God does not exist, then by nature we must fall back on existentialism on these questions, of which the Absurd is far better than suicide or keeping oneself distracted by minutiae. For even if God does not exist, all still remains Vanity - as Ecclesiastes says.

It is sort of Paschal's wager. While I believe Christianity to be true, if false, I would not lose anything by continuing to hold to it. In fact, I would gain purposiveness, something to ground my epistemology on, a wonderful form of Distraction from the meaningless world through emotional, rational and spiritual experience. Atheism is a barren mistress, as I recall. I would be greatly saddened and confused if I had to descend into the "about about in reel and rout, the Deathfires that dance at night; the waters like a witch's Oils, burn green and blue and white."

 

[quatona]

It is sort of Paschal's wager. While I believe Christianity to be true, if false, I would not lose anything by continuing to hold to it.

You haven´t thought that through.

 

[bhsmte]

God demonstrated himself over time through loving relationships. All I can do is love others as he does in the hopes that they'll receive it.

Opinion, not fact.

 

[bhsmte]

Someday we shall all die. If I as a Christian am wrong, then nothing will have come of it. I'll become dust, but will have lived a life devoted to a beautiful idea, of restoration and repentance, of redemption of a dark world. I have been an Atheist before, so I know the grass on that side is not particularly green, more ashen. I think @PloverWing said it well: Like Puddleglum, I am for Narnia even if there is no Narnia.

I also very much agree with @Silmarien who has spoken very cogently and patiently here, much better than I could have. The Neo-Darwinian views of cold genes responsible for all human altruism or goodness, I find abhorrent, negative and patently affirms Total Depravity. If God does not exist, then by nature we must fall back on existentialism on these questions, of which the Absurd is far better than suicide or keeping oneself distracted by minutiae. For even if God does not exist, all still remains Vanity - as Ecclesiastes says.

It is sort of Paschal's wager. While I believe Christianity to be true, if false, I would not lose anything by continuing to hold to it. In fact, I would gain purposiveness, something to ground my epistemology on, a wonderful form of Distraction from the meaningless world through emotional, rational and spiritual experience. Atheism is a barren mistress, as I recall. I would be greatly saddened and confused if I had to descend into the "about about in reel and rout, the Deathfires that dance at night; the waters like a witch's Oils, burn green and blue and white."

If that works for you, stick to it. For others, there is something to be said about being honest with one's self and simply not being able to reconcile a belief, if they dont believe it is true.

 

[Chriliman]

If that works for you, stick to it. For others, there is something to be said about being honest with one's self and simply not being able to reconcile a belief, if they dont believe it is true.

That's understandable, and hopefully you also honestly recognize that whether or not God exists does not depend on how you reconcile your beliefs.

And just to be fair, whether or not everything came from nothing or the eternal multiverse, does not depend on how I reconcile my beliefs.

What matters is whether or not I accept the truth that the evidence is revealing.

 

[bhsmte]

That's understandable, and hopefully you also honestly recognize that whether or not God exists does not depend on how you reconcile your beliefs.

And just to be fair, whether or not everything came from nothing or the eternal multiverse, does not depend on how I reconcile my beliefs.

What matters is whether or not I accept the truth that the evidence is revealing.

I dont know what nothing is and whether nothing ever existed.

 

[Chriliman]

I dont know what nothing is and whether nothing ever existed.

Me either, but I do know it's illogical to think absolutely nothing could make something. So maybe, at least we can be willing to throw that theory out in favor of some eternal existence as the causal force.

 

[bhsmte]

Me either, but I do know it's illogical to think absolutely nothing could make something. So maybe, at least we can be willing to throw that theory out in favor of some eternal existence as the causal force.

I guess you would need to demonstrate, that nothing ever existed.

 

[Chriliman]

I guess you would need to demonstrate, that nothing ever existed.

Why would I need to demonstrate that? Is that even possible to demonstrate?

 

[bhsmte]

Why would I need to demonstrate that? Is that even possible to demonstrate?

You dont have to do anything, but you are the one that keeps claiming something cant come from nothing. To supportnthis claim, it may be beneficial to show nothing has ever existed.