What would you lose if Christianity were not true?

[Sanoy]

No depends on me just yet. Going to the bathroom on my own now.

Good on you. But ah, back to the question....Do you have a soul?

 

[Tinker Grey]

@zippy2006, thanks for the response.

 

[Silmarien]

Not at all. You and I believe the same thing: that the physical universe exists. We live on a planet, it orbits a sun, the sky is blue, fire is hot. That's all I believe, and I don't have to prove it to you because you already accept it.

You, on the other hand, believe that there is an invisible, all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal entity called "God", as portrayed in the Christian Bible. That's "quite the burden".

Why would you assume that I already accept these things? I am actually a pretty committed anti-materialist, which means that the existence of physical reality is one of the things I'm less certain of. I dance between Plato and Aristotle.

This is an underlying problem here. You assume that theists share the same axioms that you do and then add on additional ones. For some this is true, but not for all of us. My starting point is Necessary Existence and the Neoplatonic One, not the physical universe, which could very well just be the fever dream of a dying Hindu god.

Also, the sky is not blue. That's the refraction of light as captured by our eyes.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Why would you assume that I already accept these things? I am actually a pretty committed anti-materialist, which means that the existence of physical reality is one of the things I'm less certain of. I dance between Plato and Aristotle.
This is an underlying problem here. You assume that theists share the same axioms that you do and then add on additional ones. For some this is true, but not for all of us. My starting point is Necessary Existence and the Neoplatonic One, not the physical universe, which could very well just be the fever dream of a dying Hindu god.

Thank you, Silmarien. Having your opponent admit that they aren't certain the world is real is always useful in a debate. You're doing a fine job of making your opinion irrelevant by admitting that nothing you say needs be taken seriously.

Also, the sky is not blue. That's the refraction of light as captured by our eyes.

Or is it? How can we be sure of anything, eh?

 

[BigV]

Good on you. But ah, back to the question....Do you have a soul?

Why don't you define what you mean? What is 'soul'?

 

[dlamberth]

Thank you, Silmarien. Having your opponent admit that they aren't certain the world is real is always useful in a debate.

The Mystics tend to say that Reality is only relatively real. The Indigenous people say that Nature and Reality around us is a Verb. The Sufies, who are Mystics, talk about the world we see around us as being an illusion. Quantum Theory tells us that Reality is both a wave and particle. Or in others words, what you make it. I'm of the spiritual trajectory where the ONLY Reality is God. Some would call that as being Hard Panentheist.

You're doing a fine job of making your opinion irrelevant by admitting that nothing you say needs be taken seriously.

Even in disagreement, I've always taken what Silmarien says with respect. Maybe trying to listen with different ears would give a fuller depth of understanding?

Or is it? How can we be sure of anything, eh?

The one thing I am Sure of is Love. It's almost like we Human Beings, more than any other critters walking the Earth are made to respond to Love. But at the same time we're unable to put our finger on what Love is. Love is a Reality we can sink into, even get lost in. Poets talk about Love. Singers sing about Love. But it's not physical reality. Yet Love as a non-physical reality touches each of us in one way or another.

 

[Sanoy]

Why don't you define what you mean? What is 'soul'?

I'm leaving that up to you. You can use the dictionary, you can define it the way you did in the past, or perhaps you have your own definition you wish to use.

 

[BigV]

I'm leaving that up to you. You can use the dictionary, you can define it the way you did in the past, or, assuming you wish to say you have one, you can tell me what that means.

I think the bodily existence is what we have. Once we die, it's lights out forever. There is no evidence for anything else.

Evidence for bodily existence only includes anesthesia, when your 'soul' is doing the same thing your body is doing (i.e bing unconscious). Death, in my view, is the eternal unconsciousness.

 

[Sanoy]

I think the bodily existence is what we have. Once we die, it's lights out forever. There is no evidence for anything else.

The last part above is not even close to true, but I want to focus on the first. I saw you change after you rejected Jesus. You were a kind and loving person, and that is gone. As you would have defined it, you have lost your soul, twice over. Yet one can read your history and witness something perish that is not your body.

 

[dlamberth]

I think the bodily existence is what we have. Once we die, it's lights out forever. There is no evidence for anything else.

I used to believe the same. Than my first child was born and everything changed for me. It's when I first saw that baby smile and eyes lit up upon recognition of her mother that made me realize there is something much, much more going on inside of us than mere body existence.

 

[Silmarien]

Thank you, Silmarien. Having your opponent admit that they aren't certain the world is real is always useful in a debate. You're doing a fine job of making your opinion irrelevant by admitting that nothing you say needs be taken seriously.

Oh, I don't know. In my experience, Spinoza, Leibniz, Kant, and Hegel are taken pretty seriously. Some of the stuff being bandied about by physicists is wilder than anything I've said, but I guess they're irrelevant too.

 

[zippy2006]

Oh, I don't know. In my experience, Spinoza, Leibniz, Kant, and Hegel are taken pretty seriously.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I'm leaving that up to you. You can use the dictionary, you can define it the way you did in the past, or perhaps you have your own definition you wish to use.

Does an amoeba have a soul?
Does a cat?
Does a gorilla?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

The last part above is not even close to true, but I want to focus on the first. I saw you change after you rejected Jesus. You were a kind and loving person, and that is gone. As you would have defined it, you have lost your soul, twice over. Yet one can read your history and witness something perish that is not your body.

That sounds like an attempt to guilt someone.

 

[mama2one]

Does an amoeba have a soul?
Does a cat?
Does a gorilla?

God made MAN in his image.
Genesis 1:27

 

[InterestedAtheist]

God made MAN in his image.
Genesis 1:27

So amoebas and dogs and gorillas don't have souls, but people do?
But it's the Bible that says so.
And trying to prove the Bible with the Bible is circular logic.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

The Mystics tend to say that Reality is only relatively real. The Indigenous people say that Nature and Reality around us is a Verb. The Sufies, who are Mystics, talk about the world we see around us as being an illusion. Quantum Theory tells us that Reality is both a wave and particle. Or in others words, what you make it. I'm of the spiritual trajectory where the ONLY Reality is God. Some would call that as being Hard Panentheist.

(shrug) With respect, so what?

Even in disagreement, I've always taken what Silmarien says with respect. Maybe trying to listen with different ears would give a fuller depth of understanding?

I have too. Silmarien and I have had some very long and interesting discussions in the past, and I've always respected her as a worthy opponent. But things have gone too far this time, and I think it's best we don't speak again.

The one thing I am Sure of is Love. It's almost like we Human Beings, more than any other critters walking the Earth are made to respond to Love. But at the same time we're unable to put our finger on what Love is. Love is a Reality we can sink into, even get lost in. Poets talk about Love. Singers sing about Love. But it's not physical reality. Yet Love as a non-physical reality touches each of us in one way or another.

Interesting.
First, what do you mean when you say "the only thing you are sure of is love? Do you mean it is the only thing you can be certain is real? Or do you mean it is the only thing you can rely on? Or do you mean it is the only thing that gives life meaning? I don't mean to quibble, but the word "sure" can mean different things in different contexts.
Second, love is not a physical reality? In fact, it is. Love is the effect of chemicals in the brain. I don't mean to cheapen or debase it. There is a lot we don't understand about love, and hope, and sadness, and despair. But there is no evidence that love has any kind of existence independent of the people feeling it.

 

[holo]

Short answer. Everything.

Long answer. Christianity provides a bottom and a top, a ground and sky perspective from which one can orient and navigate life. Losing it is like leaving the earth for space, where there is no top, no bottom, no orientation, no where to go, just a constant floating. Everyone has a compass there, but it leads nowhere, because it was born from nothing.

1. I would lose the grounding to my intellectual faculties, which serve as the epistemic basis for discovering the truth. A naturalistic account of this is insufficient in both my opinion and also the opinion of some atheists. (complicated, but discussed here)
2. I would lose the grounding for true moral behavior. With God, one moves either toward or away from an objective paradigm set by him, and our intuitions provide a real goal and apprehension of ultimate consequence toward our progression toward or away from Him. Without that objective paradigm, one is simply floating around in a sea of moral hypotheses where every direction is only contingently better than any other direction, there is no goal, no ground, no sky, just floating around in an evolutionary delusion in the mind until you die. One may have a moral compass, but it leads to nowhere, because it was born from nothing.
   
3. I would lose the transformative power of the Holy Spirit to lead one to true life, whom I have seen transform me, when I yield myself to Christ, and who I have seen utterly transform my wife through prayer.
4. I would lose my hope in suffering. I would no longer have anyone to call out too for healing, for which both me and my wife have received.
   
5. I would lose my reason to live in suffering. Whatever I deem good becomes my reason to live, and it's sustained deprivation becomes my reason to die.
6. I would live under a persistent delusion, born from an evolution of mind, which makes the world appear fallen from what it ought to be, compels me to cry to nothing for change, all while nothing hears me and no thing ought to be
7. I would lose the hope of the restoration of all things.
8. I would lose free will, and consequently rationality. Everything in nature is deterministic, why should I be any different. If I am determined to believe or not believe a thing, I cannot come to any rational conclusions. My thoughts and conclusions are no more important than a tree growing a branch, or a rock skidding down a steep cliff.
   
9. Finally I would lose the greatest person I have ever met, one who brings me to tears to consider. One whose consideration nourishes my soul, whose words establish my soul, whose promises will restore my soul. I would lose the ultimate raison d'etre, a raison d'etre that brings all things into utter completion and fulfillment. With Him I gain everything, apart from Him I have nothing but a mental delusion mistakenly called life.

Remember that atheism doesn't mean anything other than not believing in God. Sure, it's possible to just remove all traces of Christianity from your life. But it's also possible (and I guess inevitable) to replace some of the things you lose when you lose faith. Personally, I was especially surprised to find so much meaning and hope after I lost faith, though it took me several years of horrible agnosticism before I came out on the other side of faith, so to speak.

Another thing that struck me, looking back on my faith and deconversion, was that it felt at the time as if I were losing God. God was there, helping me out, and then he left. But it dawned on me that he was never there to begin with. So all the good things I had as a believer, I didn't have because God was there, but in spite of him not being there. It was an illusion, but a powerful and helpful one. My faith caused me quite a lot of trouble, but it was also a... well, salvation in many ways. I was both terrified (at first) and then relieved (later) to see God disappear. In a way I was fooled - I used to believe that faith in God was the only possible way to have real peace. I don't mind if people believe, but I think it's a shame if they hold on to faith because they're scared of God not being there after all.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

... It was an illusion, but a powerful and helpful one. My faith caused me quite a lot of trouble, but it was also a... well, salvation in many ways. I was both terrified (at first) and then relieved (later) to see God disappear. In a way I was fooled - I used to believe that faith in God was the only possible way to have real peace. I don't mind if people believe, but I think it's a shame if they hold on to faith because they're scared of God not being there after all.

And I and Pascal would say that you "have a problem" then, holo.

 

[Sanoy]

So all the good things I had as a believer, I didn't have because God was there, but in spite of him not being there. It was an illusion, but a powerful and helpful one.

If God does not exist I agree, and that is what I tried to convey when I spoke about delusion. The illusion you speak of never ended, it just changed chapters. This new chapter may matter to you, but it is not different in nature from the previous chapter. All of that book, which we may call your mental state, is merely the product of the indifference of evolution. We are all the slaves of our intuitions which toss our thoughts and beliefs like a cork floating along the ocean. You merely described a change in scenery, rather than anything fundamentally different.