Atheists: Is it wrong if someone becomes a Christian for hap

Let’s say person A decides they want eternal bliss so they start praying, going to a mainstream Christian church on Sundays and giving to the poor, etc., is that immoral or wrong in some way to you, as an atheist?

Why or why not?

not wrong, just a series of assumptions that one then
follows unto death… so if the original assumptions are wrong,
then you are not following a truthful life…one of the base assumptions
is this: once you believe, you have found the truth…

over my long life, I have “believed” in many things
and was proven wrong in that believe in those many things…

as each belief is shown to be untrue, I get closer and closer to
the reality that is true…

I searched for god for 40 years and found nothing…

once I stopped “believing” I was once step closer to reality…

Kropotkin

Thanks.

This interview just popped up on my YouTube.

I thought you may find it interesting:

youtu.be/BOtr93pwY3c

K: as I have made it clear over these many years, I don’t “do” video’s, youtube or
otherwise…I have objections to them as they are a very lazy way to do philosophy,
and secondly, I am hearing impaired thus unable to hear them… I dislike
using close captions as I must use close captions for everything and it gets
old, very very old…

Kropotkin

Or how about this:

Let’s say person A decides they want eternal bliss so they start praying, going to a mainstream Islamic/Jewish/Hindu place of worship and giving to the poor, etc., is that immoral or wrong in some way to you, as a Roman Catholic?

Or the argument that religion is the opiate of the masses and rather than giving to the poor you should help them to organize politically so as to rid the world of poverty itself.

On the other hand, given the context you note, an atheist has to address this question by starting with the assumption that in a No God world, there does not appear to be a path to either immortality or salvation. So, sure, to the extent that person A can delude herself into believing that there is one and that going to church and giving to the poor etc., is likely to bring her immortality and salvation, how can that actually be demonstrated to be either immoral or wrong?

Only in a world where it is demonstrated definitively that a God, the God does not exist can it be demonstrated that she is irrational.

But immoral? Nope. In my view, morality, as with immortality and salvation, revolves around the existence of God.

Why on Earth do you suppose that dozens and dozens of them have been invented?

Also, it seems the only reason “the Gods” became a God, the God is that science was able to offer explanations for all the things that used to be attributed to the Gods centuries ago.

That would be an argument that lays a claim on objective truth, sai.

to follow up on what Iam said,
why is salvation or immortality even the point of existence?

the assumption is that we seek salvation and/or immortality as
being the reason of or the point of human existence…

and yet, nothing I have seen even suggests that seeking salvation
or immortality is even a/the reason for human existence…

it is just another assumption, like Marx’s worker paradise or
that seeking wealth or fame or titles is the point of existence…
or even seeking happiness as the ‘‘point’’ of existence…

remove these assumptions and what is left?

Kropotkin

What is it with you? Once again, you “disappear” from ILP for weeks at a time. Then you are back yet again with a whole bunch of these one line “retorts”.

And, yes, there are Marxists here who would argue that Marx’s assessment of political economy was “scientific”. That it encompassed the objective truth about religion. The Marxist objectivists. I used to be one myself.

On the other hand, arguing that religion is the opiate of the masses and that through class struggle, the poor can climb up out of poverty…is that necessarily an irrational point of view? What say you? In, for example, a whole paragraph.

Look, if, once again, you are inclined to allow me to make a fool out of you here, sure, bring it on.

After all, when you are waiting for godot, that is entertainment. :laughing:

Run the Marx thing by phoneutria and get back to us. :wink:

Also, the Catholic Church teaches there is truth in all the mainstream religions.

Isn’t it interesting how they all have a version of the Golden Rule?

Okay, just out of curiosity, it’s Judgment Day. And the Roman Catholic God is the God:

You die. You’re a devout Moslem, Jew, Hindu, Shinto, Buddhist etc.

Now, some Christians insist there isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell of you going beyond the Pearly Gates. You either have accepted Jesus Christ as your Savior or…or what?

How then do you demonstrate to us what one’s fate would be here on Judgment Day?

And, again, with so much at stake, wouldn’t it be absolutely vital that you can demonstrate this? After all, all the other denominational apologists are preaching the Gospel.

Of course, philosophically, even the Golden Rule has its critics: philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?t=262

The Catholic Church teaches that everyone gets perfect judgment and non-Catholics and non-Christians can be saved, although it’s harder.

This article explains it. It’s in audio, too, if you don’t want to read the whole thing.

catholic.com/magazine/onlin … lic-church

I’ll stand before God in judgement any day.

I don’t believe in god, but I do believe in our collective judgement. And anyone as arrogant as to take a throne forever in the universe is going to have to face me someday.

Pay-per-view would make trillions off this debate!

Harder?

…again, with so much at stake, wouldn’t it be absolutely vital that the Catholic Church can in fact demonstrate what “perfect judgment” means? After all, the other denominations are preaching their own Gospels. And they might insist it is harder for Catholics to be saved.

Note some specific examples of this in regard to those who on this side of the grave are devout Moslems or Hindus or Buddhists. How might they still be judged as worthy to be saved?

And what substantive evidence does the Catholic Church provide to demonstrate that those Christian denominations who argue that one must accept Jesus Christ as their savior are wrong when it comes to Judgment Day? Are those who devoutly believe in other denominations given one last chance to accept Christ into their hearts? Before their souls are judged.

By explaining it, can one reading it then be be convinced that, yes, becoming a Catholic does in fact make it easier for them to be saved?

[b]"The Catholic Church teaches infallibly, “extra ecclesiam nulla salus,” or, “outside the Church there is no salvation.” But as with all dogmas of the Faith, this has to be qualified and understood properly. The Catechism of the Catholic Church lays out the truth of the matter succinctly in paragraphs 846-848, but I would recommend backing up to CCC 830 for a context that will help in understanding these three essential points concerning this teaching:

1] There is no salvation apart from Christ and his One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Again, this is an infallible teaching and not up for debate among Catholics.
2] Those who are “invincibly” ignorant concerning the truth of #1 above will not be culpable for this lack of knowledge before God.
3] Those in the category of #2 have the real possibility of salvation even if they never come to an explicit knowledge of Christ and/or his Church."[/b]

The key words apparently being “‘invincibly’ ignorant”. If you are invincibly ignorant you may be entitled to a “get out of Hell free” card. Simply by being ignorant!!

But, surely, at the “Pearly Gates” you must be persuaded to accept that your salvation is wholly predicated on you abandoning the wrong faith and accepting “Christ and his One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.”

On the other hand, sure, if there is a Judgment Day, you’re at the Pearly Gates, and it really does appear to be owned and operated by the Catholic God, why not accept all that.

I may be wrong here but it seems to me that that scenario is more than a tad illogical. Could an atheist necessarily start going to church, praying and giving to the poor? Remember, he is an atheist to begin with. Perhaps some horrible cataclysmic event led him to this point in time and he decided to follow Pascal’s reasoning and act as if there were a God - after all, what did he have to lose and just might have much to gain.

Personally, I am not an atheist. I am an agnostic but do YOU think or believe that that would be immoral or wrong?
After all, the person is turning his life over to a God which he cannot quite believe in. That takes some courage. Do you see that as cheating God? Do you think that a God would think he/she/it was being cheated? Hopefully a God would not think in the same terms which we silly humans do. Humans are flawed, imperfect and come with a lot of baggage.

Perhaps those who come to God in perfect belief and love feel that they themselves are getting the dirty end of the stick.
They are the ones who truly love and believe in God so why should he get the same treatment and award that they hope for?

Who is it, do you think, is really not quite so righteous nor good?

:open_mouth:

Deciding that he does not want eternal bliss would be insane. What information led him to choose the church life in order to gain that goal is the issue. If he ignored critical information - that is “wrong” (of him for sake of his own goal = “a sin”).

I think it isn’t about which decision he made as much as how he got there (but then I’m not God :smiley: ).

Good questions.

I don’t think any reason for coming to God is bad. Read the story of the Prodigal son in the Gospels.

Free Spirit1853

You just might want to rethink that, Free Spirit. What about the terrorists who invoke their God’s name against their enemies, innocent ones, or any others who would use God or bargain with God for their malicious purposes?

I always liked the Prodigal Son parable -one of my favorites.

How could the christian church offer aid in attaining eternal bliss, given atheism? It must be at least misguided, given atheism, if not mistaken.
The giving to charity part, is likely do some good, but the motive is suspect and I’d fail to credit him with any laudable character. He could not think of any earthly reason to care about his fellow man and only through the promise of eternal bliss felt any motivation to act. Anyone else that could be made to believe such a bargain was real, would likely do the same… it could hardly be called selfless or caring.

If I fooled a man who was attempting to commit a murder to instead prevent a murder… did I make him a good person?

That’s not coming to God, it’s just using God’s name to commit terrorism.

No, but you committed a good deed.

I don’t think the motive matters as much as the deed.