What would you lose if Christianity were not true?

[Silmarien]

Maybe you would gain something. Something wonderful:

Into the Clear Air - Daylight Atheism

“Due to my total change of world view I also had some very weird experiences that were not like anything I had expected. I was struck enormously by what I called ‘existential shock.’ I was completely amazed at the mere fact of existence. Not in a ‘wow that’s impressive’ manner but in a feeling that I only had religious words for. It was being struck by the amazing ‘sacrament’ of life – or the utter shock and opportunity of existence over its alternative. It was totally numinous and an almost disturbing feeling that existence is the case. I felt transformed, awed, excited – the whole world seemed more special than can ever be said. Life was far more poignant without Christianity than it had ever been with it. I was not expecting this to happen to me. I thought these experiences were what converted people to religion, not what you got when you left!”
—Steve Locks, “Why I left Christianity”

This is an interesting train of thought, though I wouldn't have really expected it from you, given your focus on empiricism rather than emotionalism. Are you now suggesting that we should base our beliefs on personal mystical experiences rather than reason? Should we forego the pursuit of truth and believe whatever makes our lives most meaningful, whatever that might be?

 

[klutedavid]

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

Oh yes it does.

If Christ is God then I win.

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?"

Of course that does not negate, the fact, that if Christ is God I win. No matter how many volcano God's there are.

"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."

Of course I disagree. The evidence must be observational evidence and observational evidence removes assumptions.

Daniel 10:5-6
I lifted my eyes and looked, and behold, there was a certain man dressed in linen, whose waist was girded with a belt of pure gold of Uphaz. His body also was like beryl, his face had the appearance of lightning, his eyes were like flaming torches, his arms and feet like the gleam of polished bronze, and the sound of his words like the sound of a tumult.

Now show me an observation by someone on Zeus or Jupiter.

"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?"

Entry is restricted to believers only, the very definition of, 'a Christian', is one who believes.

"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...

It never was about God as such and was always about that belief in Jesus Christ. If Pascal believed in Jesus Christ then he will enter heaven. If Pascal believed in the Catholic church, then Pascal would fail.

...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.

Death has a nasty habit of removing completely all of life's decisions and habits, gains and losses.

You never lose anything tangible in being a Christian, as life is far too short to matter. The gain is eternal and there never was any real loss.

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?"

Death cancels everything; your not seeing death for what it represents. At death there is no profit and loss columns.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

This is an interesting train of thought, though I wouldn't have really expected it from you, given your focus on empiricism rather than emotionalism. Are you now suggesting that we should base our beliefs on personal mystical experiences rather than reason? Should we forego the pursuit of truth and believe whatever makes our lives most meaningful, whatever that might be?

Did I say anywhere "You should become an atheist because it will make you happy?"

All I said was that if you do become an atheist, you may find some benefits. As this clarifies:

Into the Clear Air - Daylight Atheism

"Although atheism is a highly individual and personal philosophy, as it should be, the process of becoming an atheist follows a surprisingly predictable pattern. I have read a great number of testimonials written by ex-believers, and in my experience, the great majority of them consist of the same four steps, in the same order. This essay will detail these steps and cite testimonials that show people passing through each of them. The primary purpose of this is to give hope and comfort to people going through their own deconversion, and to show them that although the process may be difficult, the end result makes it all worthwhile."

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Oh yes it does.

If Christ is God then I win.
Of course that does not negate, the fact, that if Christ is God I win. No matter how many volcano God's there are.

Of course I disagree. The evidence must be observational evidence and observational evidence removes assumptions.

Daniel 10:5-6
I lifted my eyes and looked, and behold, there was a certain man dressed in linen, whose waist was girded with a belt of pure gold of Uphaz. His body also was like beryl, his face had the appearance of lightning, his eyes were like flaming torches, his arms and feet like the gleam of polished bronze, and the sound of his words like the sound of a tumult.

Now show me an observation by someone on Zeus or Jupiter.

Entry is restricted to believers only, the very definition of, 'a Christian', is one who believes.

It never was about God as such and was always about that belief in Jesus Christ. If Pascal believed in Jesus Christ then he will enter heaven. If Pascal believed in the Catholic church, then Pascal would fail.

Death has a nasty habit of removing completely all of life's decisions and habits, gains and losses.

You never lose anything tangible in being a Christian, as life is far too short to matter. The gain is eternal and there never was any real loss.

Death cancels everything; your not seeing death for what it represents. At death there is no profit and loss columns.

Klutedavid, a polite suggestion: perhaps you should take a little more time to read the things I said and quoted, and think about them.
I think you have some serious misunderstandings to work through. I won't say any more at present, although I'd be happy to answer any follow-up questions you have. But I would recommend, again, that you reread and think a little more.

 

[Silmarien]

Did I say anywhere "You should become an atheist because it will make you happy?"

All I said was that if you do become an atheist, you may find some benefits. As this clarifies:

Into the Clear Air - Daylight Atheism

"Although atheism is a highly individual and personal philosophy, as it should be, the process of becoming an atheist follows a surprisingly predictable pattern. I have read a great number of testimonials written by ex-believers, and in my experience, the great majority of them consist of the same four steps, in the same order. This essay will detail these steps and cite testimonials that show people passing through each of them. The primary purpose of this is to give hope and comfort to people going through their own deconversion, and to show them that although the process may be difficult, the end result makes it all worthwhile."

What if the end result doesn't make it worthwhile? The only "benefit" I ever got from atheism was a collection of anxiety disorders with an unhealthy side helping of suicidal ideation. That whole page is vapid and deceitful, promising an almost Christian style salvation that is by no means a guaranteed end result given that atheism is at best contentless.

 

[Sanoy]

@BigV Do you you have a soul?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

What if the end result doesn't make it worthwhile?

Which is better? To face the truth, or believe a comforting lie?
By asking this question, Silmarien, and by saying that you yourself found life as a nontheist to be unbearable painful, you're making me suspect that you would go with the second.

Is that why you became a Christian? Because you couldn't face the truth?
If the answer is no, if you say it's better to say the truth, then you've answered your own question.

As for "vapidity", well, you're entitled to your own opinion. Perhaps you think that it's wrong trying to comfort people as they go through the difficult process of deconversion.

 

[Halbhh]

Which is better? To face the truth, or believe a comforting lie?
By asking this question, Silmarien, and by saying that you yourself found life as a nontheist to be unbearable painful, you're making me suspect that you would go with the second.

Is that why you became a Christian? Because you couldn't face the truth?
If the answer is no, if you say it's better to say the truth, then you've answered your own question.

As for "vapidity", well, you're entitled to your own opinion. Perhaps you think that it's wrong trying to comfort people as they go through the difficult process of deconversion.

Being caught up in an anti-religion religion isn't any better than being caught up in a false kind of religion. It's just a new jail cell.

The real freedom is to escape the false stuff more completely (so you don't live just to fight old personal battles, like circling endlessly in a cul-de-sac), and also escape being too caught up your own investments in whatever ideology.

So that you get free to seek the more ineffable truths. To finally be free enough, to have more of a curious and seeking attitude.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Being caught up in an anti-religion religion isn't any better than being caught up in a false kind of religion. It's just a new jail cell.

The real freedom is to escape the false stuff more completely (so you don't live just to fight old personal battles, like circling endlessly in a cul-de-sac), and also escape being too caught up your own investments in whatever ideology.

So that you get free to seek the more ineffable truths. To finally be free enough, to have more of a curious and seeking attitude.

Really? So there's no difference to you between believing a lie and seeing that it is a lie?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I'm sorry you feel that is funny. Do you not think that's a reasonable point to take from what you said?
I mean, it sounded like you were saying there is no difference being inside and outside a false religion.

 

[Halbhh]

Really? So there's no difference to you between believing a lie and seeing that it is a lie?

I thought this was helpful, from the current Francis:

“But what is scandal? Scandal is saying one thing and doing another; it is a double life, a double life. A totally double life: ‘I am very Catholic, I always go to Mass, I belong to this association and that one; but my life is not Christian, I don’t pay my workers a just wage, I exploit people, I am dirty in my business, I launder money …’ A double life. And so many Christians are like this, and these people scandalize others. How many times have we heard — all of us, around the neighborhood and elsewhere — ‘but to be a Catholic like that, it’s better to be an atheist.’ It is that, scandal. You destroy. You beat down...."
FACT CHECK: Did Pope Francis Say It Was Better to Be an Atheist Than a Bad Catholic?

As I see it, Francis is saying that doing a false version of being Christian is even less good than being atheist. (which isn't saying atheism is the best outcome; but saying only that being a Christian without doing what Christ said to do is even worse in a way...). Put in different wording, at least atheists have escaped from a false version of being Christian. A good step in a way, if they don't get stuck then in mere ideology. Getting stuck in ideology happens when our own ego traps us in our current ideas, slowing us down in life, like getting stuck in mire.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

That's a reasonable thing for Pope Francis to say, but I don't think it addresses your comment. So let us make an assumption that there is a religion that is false. Are you saying it is wrong of people to argue against it and and point out it's falsehoods?

 

[Halbhh]

That's a reasonable thing for Pope Francis to say, but I don't think it addresses your comment. So let us make an assumption that there is a religion that is false. Are you saying it is wrong of people to argue against it and and point out it's falsehoods?

I often argue against false religion.

Usefully, there is help from a source most respect. For example:

James 1:27 Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

Just for example (there is more of course, but this one is quite direct).

You'd not want to be stuck in an ideology that prevents you from being able to seek out more understanding and insights and wisdom for living your life. An example of being stuck in ideology would be to have a biased slant in how one listens to a wise teacher like Christ, so that one misrepresents what He says, for instance, always trying to make it less good or divert attention away from the primary and intended meaning, for example, as we see too often argued by atheists. That shows they are stuck in ideology in a self-harming way.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I often argue against false religion.

Usefully, there is help from a source most respect. For example:

James 1:27 Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

Just for example (there is more of course, but this one is quite direct).

You'd not want to be stuck in an ideology that prevents you from being able to seek out more understanding and insights and wisdom for living your life. An example of being stuck in ideology would be to have a biased slant in how one listens to a wise teacher like Christ, so that one misrepresents what He says, for instance, always trying to make it less good or divert attention away from the primary and intended meaning, for example, as we see too often argued by atheists. That shows they are stuck in ideology in a self-harming way.

No problem, then. I'm quite happy to accept the wisdom of christ. But that doesn't stop me from pointing out things which are, quite simply, mistakes in thinking.

It's not my whole life. It's not an obsession. It's not unhealthy. It is, quite simply, that Christianity is wrong, and people should know that.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No problem, then. I'm quite happy to accept the wisdom of christ. But that doesn't stop me from pointing out things which are, quite simply, mistakes in thinking.

It's not my whole life. It's not an obsession. It's not unhealthy. It is, quite simply, that Christianity is wrong, and people should know that.

Well then, if that is your conclusion, then it sounds like we've reached an impasse to further discussion. Look me up when you realize the Devil has your number and you actually need Jesus to be your Lord and Savior.

I'm done. For now.

 

[Halbhh]

No problem, then. I'm quite happy to accept the wisdom of christ. But that doesn't stop me from pointing out things which are, quite simply, mistakes in thinking.

It's not my whole life. It's not an obsession. It's not unhealthy. It is, quite simply, that Christianity is wrong, and people should know that.

In a way we have a similar conclusion -- I've no doubt that false conceptions I've seen on atheist websites about various things in the Bible are indeed wrong ideas about how to live, just as you say.

As I put it to someone else above: the real challenge for anyone is to rise up to a better level of comprehension/listening when they read what Christ said.

To stop thinking they already know what Christ said so perfectly, or even at all, and instead do the much wiser thing of trying to listen and wanting to understand what He meant in ways they haven't gotten yet.

That's the way to gain in life, about anything. Why waste your time/life doing anything less?

 

[Silmarien]

Which is better? To face the truth, or believe a comforting lie?
By asking this question, Silmarien, and by saying that you yourself found life as a nontheist to be unbearable painful, you're making me suspect that you would go with the second.

I actually think that atheism is the comforting lie, since it illegitimately removes the need to grapple with issues of ultimate concern. Religion is not easy, and not always comforting, and really provides the only scenario in which we would genuinely have to one day "face the truth," given the whole issue of divine judgment, so I would definitely go with preparing for that possibility as the better option.

Anyway, it wasn't life as a non-theist that was unbearably painful. It's the subjectivism that ensues which is problematic if you're melancholic by nature. I'm still prone to that, by the conviction that existence is inherently good and worthwhile despite my changing moods makes that much easier to deal with.

Is that why you became a Christian? Because you couldn't face the truth?
If the answer is no, if you say it's better to say the truth, then you've answered your own question.

No. I was convinced that Christianity was false, until I examined it closely and realized that it actually held together. I am now one of the Pascalians--I don't think it's possible to know the truth (barring direct personal revelation), so the decision must be made on other grounds.

As for "vapidity", well, you're entitled to your own opinion. Perhaps you think that it's wrong trying to comfort people as they go through the difficult process of deconversion.

Honestly, that page reads like the atheistic version of the sort of guidelines, sprinkled with testimony, that an Evangelical site might offer. Having gone through a difficult conversion, I always found that sort of thing stressful rather than comforting, so I actually do think that it's wrong.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Well then, if that is your conclusion, then it sounds like we've reached an impasse to further discussion. Look me up when you realize the Devil has your number and you actually need Jesus to be your Lord and Savior.

I'm done. For now.

You think that someone saying they are happy to agree with what's true while pointing out and explaining things that are false is "reaching an impasse"?

Let me return the compliment, Philo.
If you ever come to a realisation that Christianity isn't true and need someone to talk to, feel free to contact me.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I actually think that atheism is the comforting lie, since it illegitimately removes the need to grapple with issues of ultimate concern. Religion is not easy, and not always comforting, and really provides the only scenario in which we would genuinely have to one day "face the truth," given the whole issue of divine judgment, so I would definitely go with preparing for that possibility as the better option.

There are certainly a number of angles these questions could be looked at, and it may well be a matter of opinion, depending on a person's viewpoint.But does it matter, in the end? No matter which is more frightening or more comforting, the question is what's true.

Anyway, it wasn't life as a non-theist that was unbearably painful. It's the subjectivism that ensues which is problematic if you're melancholic by nature. I'm still prone to that, by the conviction that existence is inherently good and worthwhile despite my changing moods makes that much easier to deal with.

Well, I'm very sorry to hear that, and glad you're in a better place now.

No. I was convinced that Christianity was false, until I examined it closely and realized that it actually held together. I am now one of the Pascalians--I don't think it's possible to know the truth (barring direct personal revelation), so the decision must be made on other grounds.

I see.

Honestly, that page reads like the atheistic version of the sort of guidelines, sprinkled with testimony, that an Evangelical site might offer. Having gone through a difficult conversion, I always found that sort of thing stressful rather than comforting, so I actually do think that it's wrong.

I wouldn't disagree with you on that. But does it matter? Not your cup of tea, perhaps. But remember why I posted it: to show that there can be a very definite benefit to becoming an atheist. Not that this should count against the question of whether or not it's true, but the benefit is there for some people. You have told me that this kind of thing doesn't appeal to you, and I understand that. But the overall point remains: giving up Christianity can have some very positive emotional benefits, and there are many people who can give evidence to that effect.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

In a way we have a similar conclusion -- I've no doubt that false conceptions I've seen on atheist websites about various things in the Bible are indeed wrong ideas about how to live, just as you say.

As I put it to someone else above: the real challenge for anyone is to rise up to a better level of comprehension/listening when they read what Christ said.

To stop thinking they already know what Christ said so perfectly, or even at all, and instead do the much wiser thing of trying to listen and wanting to understand what He meant in ways they haven't gotten yet.

That's the way to gain in life, about anything. Why waste your time/life doing anything less?

Halbhh, there are three big of assumptions built in to what you're saying.
First, the real challenge is only to try to understand Christ if he is worth understanding. If Christ was the son of God, his every word is supremely important. If Christ was just a radical Jewish preacher, then what he said is pretty unimportant.

Second, "that's the way to gain in life, about anything". What is? To spend your whole life thinking about Jesus? Come back to me with that when we've established that Jesus was in fact the son of God.

And third, who says I'm wasting my life? Debating Christians isn't all I spend my time doing. It's a way of relaxing. Sharpens the mind. Provides entertainment.

So all in all, Halbhh, what's your point?