What would you lose if Christianity were not true?

[InterestedAtheist]

Yes, I would. Being able to better understand how human beings might best conceptualize, define, and maybe even measure Truth and Reality was one of the reasons I so wanted to get a degree in Philosophy.

I would always rather know the truth; I would also always want to retain the truth over and against what some group or community might press me to believe, even if they end up counting as a majority of the population. So, yes, I can honestly say that IF we could know whether God is real or not, I'd definitely want to know.

In that case, you have my sincere admiration and best wishes.
I have, you understand, run into or heard about other Christians who have said they would not want to know.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ah. The old "I could win this argument, but really it's so boring I can't be bothered," approach.

If Christians have such an amoral approach to life, then I suppose we should be grateful that Christianity keeps them on the straight and narrow.
And yet, honestly, Philo, I don't believe you. Because plenty of people have deconverted and kept a sense of morality, or even found a greater one.
As Penn Jillette put it:
"The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what’s to stop me from raping all I want? And my answer is: I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero. The fact that these people think that if they didn’t have this person watching over them that they would go on killing, raping rampages is the most self-damning thing I can imagine. I don't want to do that. Right now, without any god, I don't want to jump across this table and strangle you. I have no desire to strangle you. I have no desire to flip you over and rape you. You know what I mean?"

Y'know, the way many atheists talk, and the way they always dredge up the topic of rape, one could almost suppose---almost, that is---that they, particularly the male atheists, think that rape is the only 'bad' thing a person could do. Ok. Wait. That's not right. I'll correct that. Maybe there are two things that atheists generally seem to think are wrong: rape and murder.

Is there anything else on which they agree among themselves besides these two heinous actions?

Moreover, you mention that atheists have a 'sense of morality.' Ok. What exactly is this 'sense' and what moral set is it composted of and which ethical system is BEST enables any one atheist to articulate the then carry out in action that moral set?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Y'know, the way many atheists talk, and the way they always dredge up the topic of rape, one could almost suppose---almost, that is---that they, particularly the male atheists, think that rape is the only 'bad' thing a person could do. Ok. Wait. That's not right. I'll correct that. Maybe there are two things that atheists generally seem to think are wrong: rape and murder.

Is there anything else on which they agree among themselves besides these two heinous actions?

Moreover, you mention that atheists have a 'sense of morality.' Ok. What exactly is this 'sense' and what moral set is it composted of and which ethical system is BEST enables any one atheist to articulate the then carry out in action that moral set?

First of all, murder and rape are pretty bad. Yes, stealing and lying are bad, and yes, it is possible to commit appaliing acts with them, and yes, there are more exotic acts such as torture. But if you're reaching for something to show as an example of immoral behaviour, murder and rape are the ones to go for. Most people know about them and most people consider them to be extremely bad things.
Second, Christians talk about murder and rape all the time. I remember Dan Barker telling a story of a debate he had with a pastor, where the pastor said that if he was not a Christian there would be nothing to stop him from raping and killing.

I would be happy to talk about morality under other conditions, but I've already got two threads on the boil, and this third one sounds like it would be a full-time job. I can't take on all three at the same time.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

First of all, murder and rape are pretty bad. Yes, stealing and lying are bad, and yes, it is possible to commit appaliing acts with them, and yes, there are more exotic acts such as torture. But if you're reaching for something to show as an example of immoral behaviour, murder and rape are the ones to go for. Most people know about them and most people consider them to be extremely bad things.
Second, Christians talk about murder and rape all the time. I remember Dan Barker telling a story of a debate he had with a pastor, where the pastor said that if he was not a Christian there would be nothing to stop him from raping and killing.

I would be happy to talk about morality under other conditions, but I've already got two threads on the boil, and this third one sounds like it would be a full-time job. I can't take on all three at the same time.

Ditto; I can't take on all three at the same time either, really. But I try.

 

[klutedavid]

and

I think you haven't understood the question properly.
Imagine, quite simply, that you suddenly found out (through some unspecified means that aren't important because this is a hypothetical question) that God was not real.
Would you have lost anything?

What is there to lose?

A lifetime passes extremely quickly and there is not much baggage to carry on that short journey. You can't lose anything if God does not exist, simply because we all lose our lives anyway. We all get buried and that is guaranteed, never any winners and we all lose.

If God did not exist then I would not lose anything, simply because you don't arrive in this life with anything, and you do not depart this life with anything.

Though should God exist, then I will shine like the stars above and for eternity.

If I was a betting man I would back the Christ, because you can win on the Christ but an atheist is a guaranteed loser either way,

 

[InterestedAtheist]

What is there to lose?

A lifetime passes extremely quickly and there is not much baggage to carry on that short journey. You can't lose anything if God does not exist, simply because we all lose our lives anyway. We all get buried and that is guaranteed, never any winners and we all lose.

If God did not exist then I would not lose anything, simply because you don't arrive in this life with anything, and you do not depart this life with anything.

Though should God exist, then I will shine like the stars above and for eternity.

If I was a betting man I would back the Christ, because you can win on the Christ but an atheist is a guaranteed loser either way,

Ah. I take it, then, that you're a believer in Pascal's famous wager?
It doesn't work like that, I'm afraid.
A Flip of the Coin - Daylight Atheism

Some excerpts:
"The first and most serious objection to the Wager should be immediately obvious to anyone who sees it. It argues for belief in a god, but it doesn’t offer any advice on which god. There are hundreds, if not thousands – how can I tell which one is the right one?"
...
"The fact of the matter is that atheism is a single, unified position, but theism is not. There is no such thing as “generic theism”; one cannot choose to “just believe something“. And the choice is not, as some evangelical Christians seem to think it is, between evangelical Christianity and nothing. There are hundreds of religions, and no a priori reason to choose one of them over any of the others. And the theist who chooses the wrong religion is in just as much trouble as the atheist who chooses none of them. Therefore, the first pillar of the Wager falls: one cannot assume that a person who believes in God and is wrong stands to lose nothing."
...
"The third objection to Pascal’s Wager is as follows. Suppose an atheist hears the Wager, is impressed and converts. Then he dies. What will he say if he ends up facing God at the Pearly Gates? “Well, I didn’t really believe in you, but I played the odds.” Is that person going to get into Heaven?"
...
"The fourth and final objection to the Wager is that one of its basic premises is wrong. Pascal assumed that if one believes in God but God turns out not to exist, one has not lost anything. But this is not true. As stated previously, Pascal was a Catholic and used his Wager to promote Catholicism. To be a Catholic, though, one incurs a whole range of obligations...
...Nor does belief in other religions come without a price. If one instead chooses to be a born-again Christian, there is the duty to proselytize which may well end up driving away friends and loved ones. Choose to be a Muslim and there are prayers to be prayed five times a day every day, a holiday that requires a month of fasting, and an obligation to make a pilgrimage to Mecca. Choose to be an orthodox Jew and there are strict dietary and other laws concerning practically every aspect of living that must be rigorously adhered to. None of these things are small commitments. In fact, many religions require fundamental changes in lifestyle, behavior, mode of thought, and outlook on the world.
...
And if the god one believes in turns out not to exist, is it really true that one has lost nothing? An atheist would say that a mistaken theist has lost something very significant indeed: that person has gone through their entire life, the only life they will ever have, believing a lie. Is that really a trivial loss?"

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Ditto; I can't take on all three at the same time either, really. But I try.

Philo, I'm not badgering you about this, just curious, I promise.
Are you planning on doing a thread about Lessing's ditch? If you're too busy, no worries.

 

[mama2one]

.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

First: congratulations, I'm very happy that you and your husband are happy.

But second: this is a debate forum. So I feel bound to say this.
You must know, and I'm sure you do, that there are lots and lots of people who are wrong about something they fervently, deeply, 110% believe to be true.
Thinking that you're right, believing that you're right, knowing that you're right - they don't mean you can't be wrong.

Dan Barker is a well-known pastor, and a true and enthusiastic believer in Christ. Or should I say, he was. Because after many years of being a preacher, he realised that he had been wrong all along:
"Since I have become an atheist I often hear from believers who tell me that I could not possibly have been a true Christian or I would never have left Christianity. If I had truly known Jesus personally, like they do, then I would never have denied him. I must have been merely pretending to convince myself that God was real, they insist. Well, yes, I know exactly what they are saying. I used to preach that sermon. I preached it, believed it, knew it and felt it. If I did not have an authentic relationship with God, then why not? Why would God reveal himself to them, and not to me? I read the same bible, prayed with an open, humble spirit, and received inner confirmation of a “presence” witnessing to the truth of what I believed. If what I felt was phony, why would a good God allow me to be so deceived? (And how does anyone else know they are not being deceived as well?)"
Barker, Dan. Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists (p. 31).

So I'm afraid sometimes "I know that God is real, and cannot be mistaken" is sometimes just something that people say before they realise that He isn't, and they were.

 

[mama2one]

.

 

[Sanoy]

But the thing to consider is is: would you rather know the truth, or not? If this hypothesis was correct, if God was not real - would you want to know?

What is truth? Maybe you have a compass that leads you there, maybe you have a compass that leads you somewhere else, neither destination is anything because it's not anywhere to be, and the compass you use simply points to what it evolved to point to, not "truth". I know not truth without God who would provide me with the intellectual faculties to obtain it.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

What is truth? Maybe you have a compass that leads you there, maybe you have a compass that leads you somewhere else, neither destination is anything because it's not anywhere to be, and the compass you use simply points to what it evolved to point to, not "truth". I know not truth without God who would provide me with the intellectual faculties to obtain it.

Reminds me of Lewis Carroll:

He thought he saw an Elephant
That practised on a fife:
He looked again, and found it was
A letter from his wife.
"At length I realize," he said,
"The bitterness of life!"

He thought he saw a Buffalo
Upon the chimney-piece:
He looked again, and found it was
His Sister's Husband's Niece.
"Unless you leave this house," he said,
"I'll send for the police!"

he thought he saw a Rattlesnake
That questioned him in Greek:
He looked again, and found it was
The Middle of Next Week.
"The one thing I regret," he said,
"Is that it cannot speak!"

He thought he saw a Banker's Clerk
Descending from the bus:
He looked again, and found it was
A Hippopotamus.
"If this should stay to dine," he said,
"There won't be much for us!"

Of course, you think you are speaking to me, an atheist, but how can we know this is the truth? You could be speaking to a Christian in disguise, amusing himself for some strange reason. Or you could be speaking to a fish, and just think you're speaking to a human. Or you could actually be a fish yourslf, and just imagine that you're typing on a computer.

Who can tell?

 

[Kenny'sID]

and

I think you haven't understood the question properly.
Imagine, quite simply, that you suddenly found out (through some unspecified means that aren't important because this is a hypothetical question) that God was not real.
Would you have lost anything?

i THINK YOU HAVEN'T UNDERSTOKKK

 

[Kenny'sID]

I think you haven't understood the question properly.

I think you misunderstood my post properly.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I think you misunderstood my post properly.

You said:
"If this life were all there is, we never would have heard of God as we know him and there would be no loss because there was never any major expectations to begin with."
This means you misunderstood the thread.
We're not saying "imagine a world in which Christianity did not exist". Nor are we saying "Imagine a world in which God did not exist and never founded Christianity".
We're simple saying: "imagine that one day you decided that Christianity was not true".

As, I may point out, many people do. The "no religion" section of the US population is set to be the largest "religion" in a few years.

 

[Sanoy]

Of course, you think you are speaking to me, an atheist, but how can we know this is the truth? You could be speaking to a Christian in disguise, amusing himself for some strange reason. Or you could be speaking to a fish, and just think you're speaking to a human. Or you could actually be a fish yourslf, and just imagine that you're typing on a computer.

Who can tell?

Yes, if God doesn't exist, I think that fully parallels why it doesn't matter if I believe in God, or disbelieve him, believe in truth or believe in illusion. Each is just a destination to arrive at for no other reason but that we were evolved to arrive at it.

 

[mama2one]

.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Yes, if God doesn't exist, I think that fully parallels why it doesn't matter if I believe in God, or disbelieve him, believe in truth or believe in illusion. Each is just a destination to arrive at for no other reason but that we were evolved to arrive at it.

Oh well. There are plenty of people who thought like you, and realised that no, the universe doesn't come to an end if you realise God doesn't exist.
Just like it didn't kill you to realise that Santa isn't real.

Julia Sweeney put it like this:
But then I thought, "But I don't know how to not believe in God. I don't know how you do it. How do you get up, how do you get through the day?"
I thought, "Okay, calm down. Let's just try on the not-believing-in-God glasses for a moment, just for a second. Just put on the no-God glasses and take a quick look around and then immediately throw them off. So I put them on and I looked around.
I'm embarrassed to report that I initially felt dizzy. I actually had the thought, "Well, how does the Earth stay up in the sky? You mean, we're just hurtling through space? That's so vulnerable!" I wanted to run out and catch the earth as it fell out of space into my hands.
...
Eventually I was able to say good-bye to God. And I imagined him as this old man, this old broken down man more like an older version of the God on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. And if you looked closely you could see the Jesus on my poster in my high school bedroom, but older, much older, with long gray and white hair and lots of lines on his face. An old hippy who still smoked. And at one time he seemed so all-powerful and all-knowing and all-protective, but now he just seemed a little stinky
I could just see him sitting on his suitcases near the front door of my house. And I said to him, "I'm sorry God; it's not you. It's me. It's just, I don't think you exist. I mean, God, look at it this way: it's really because I take you so seriously that I can't bring myself to believe in you. If it's any consolation, it's sort of a sign of respect. So, you know, sit here as long as you want to, stay for a while, if you need to, there's no big hurry."
And slowly, over the course of several weeks, he disappeared.

 

[Sanoy]

Oh well. There are plenty of people who thought like you, and realised that no, the universe doesn't come to an end if you realise God doesn't exist.
Just like it didn't kill you to realise that Santa isn't real.

Julia Sweeney put it like this:
But then I thought, "But I don't know how to not believe in God. I don't know how you do it. How do you get up, how do you get through the day?"
I thought, "Okay, calm down. Let's just try on the not-believing-in-God glasses for a moment, just for a second. Just put on the no-God glasses and take a quick look around and then immediately throw them off. So I put them on and I looked around.
I'm embarrassed to report that I initially felt dizzy. I actually had the thought, "Well, how does the Earth stay up in the sky? You mean, we're just hurtling through space? That's so vulnerable!" I wanted to run out and catch the earth as it fell out of space into my hands.
...
Eventually I was able to say good-bye to God. And I imagined him as this old man, this old broken down man more like an older version of the God on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. And if you looked closely you could see the Jesus on my poster in my high school bedroom, but older, much older, with long gray and white hair and lots of lines on his face. An old hippy who still smoked. And at one time he seemed so all-powerful and all-knowing and all-protective, but now he just seemed a little stinky
I could just see him sitting on his suitcases near the front door of my house. And I said to him, "I'm sorry God; it's not you. It's me. It's just, I don't think you exist. I mean, God, look at it this way: it's really because I take you so seriously that I can't bring myself to believe in you. If it's any consolation, it's sort of a sign of respect. So, you know, sit here as long as you want to, stay for a while, if you need to, there's no big hurry."
And slowly, over the course of several weeks, he disappeared.

I didn't say the universe comes to an end. Understand what you are replying to before you make a reply. I made the point that it doesn't matter which you believe.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You said:
"If this life were all there is, we never would have heard of God as we know him and there would be no loss because there was never any major expectations to begin with."
We're simple saying: "imagine that one day you decided that Christianity was not true".

By "we're" are you seriously saying you got together with the OP to style the question? If so, and if you don't mind my asking, I have to wonder if there are a lot of Atheists that are so insecure with the own beliefs, or lack thereof, that they feel the need to make poor attempts as destroying the beliefs of others? That really does seem to be the goal, and often. I'm guessing they are few but it would be interesting to know if Christianity gnaws at them as it does at least a few? If not, since the question has already been asked, answer it still if you like.

Anyway, you are just wrong, or the OP didn't convey so well. How could we live the Christian lifestyle the OP said too live....

If this life is all there is, and you followed a Christian lifestyle,

....if there never was Christianity to show us how to live that life?

We're simple saying: "imagine that one day you decided that Christianity was not true".

The misunderstanding was due to the OP itself, and I'd suggest making it more clear.