If Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?

31 posts / 0 new
Last post
Vasily Dimitrivich's picture
If Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?

It always comes down to intelligent or moral reasons a person becomes a Christian or not. Which one are you?

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Negan's picture
If Christianity were true,

If Christianity were true, meaning god being proven real, then I would still say no. I would acknowledge that I was wrong in being an atheist but I would still not worship the christian god because this does not take away from the fact that he is a dick.

Tin-Man's picture
Re: OP - "Which one are you?"

Re: OP - "Which one are you?"

I'm an immoral moron who also happens to be a bit masochistic, and I get really pissed off when I hear of innocent/defenseless people and animals being abused/mistreated.. What's your point?

Re: "If Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?"

As I answered in the other thread: No.

David Killens's picture
NO

NO

The christian god is an immoral and cruel thug.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
A lot depends on which

A lot depends on which version of christianity you are talking about.

Maybe you should define that first...

Cognostic's picture
@Vasily Dimitrivich: I'm

@Vasily Dimitrivich: I'm not that fucking stupid.

DO YOU KNOW HOW TO AVOID FALLACIES OF LOGIC? "It always comes down to intelligent or moral reasons a person becomes a Christian or not." APPARENTLY NOT.

Other Christian motivators would include, FEAR (THREATS OF VIOLENCE), COMMUNITY, IGNORANCE, PROMISE OF REWARD, SOCIAL PRESSURE, and ENVIRONMENT (FAMILY UPBRINGING).

Morality has nothing at all to do with Christianity. Most Christians have no idea at all what the word means. Following moral dictates is not moral. It has nothing to do with being moral. You can not be moral by only acting out of fear of punishment or hopes of reward. That is greed and not morality. Certainly we are in agreement on the lack of intellect. It takes a certain ability to avoid intellectual discourse and ignore facts to become a Christian. Intelligence certainly has something to do with it. Boiling it all down to a black or white fallacy is just an ignorant way to look at things.

Grinseed's picture
Christianity?

Christianity?
Which Christianity?
You mean what Yeshua taught?

No-one actually knows what that fabled rabbinical teacher taught. The bible has been so thoroughly rewritten, edited and mangled, since your god supposedly inspired men to write it, all sects of the Christian religion follow only what they think he said. Its simply not possible to pinpoint anything Yeshua actually said. The Gospel of St Thomas has a great deal of quotes attributed to Jesus, but why is it not included as scripture in all versions of the inerrant Holy Bible? Maybe because of the stories where Yeshua killed a playmate and blinded people when he was a kid. Of course they are not very nice stories to tell about a loving god born of the flesh. Did the Christian God, or the Jewish God, inspire someone to write the apocryphal accounts, that amount to being early Stephen King story lines?

Maybe you're thinking about Pauline Christianity, which became popular with the gentile Greeks and Romans because it excised the unpleasant Jewish rituals out of the mix, like circumcision for adult male converts. Paul was desperate to be known as an apostle. He knew he had a potentially massive gentile following, if he just basically removed all the Hebrew observations and rituals that the gentiles didn't like, despite them being what Yeshua supposedly taught. But saving your dick from mutilation was the slippery slope to eating pork and bacon, shellfish, and prawns, and lobsters, and eventually, the exquisite sin of wearing clothing of mixed fabrics.

Paul wasn't thinking about the canons of the Catholic Church, or the Greek Orthodox, because they hadn't even been formed before he died in the late 60's, and in fact I rather think he might have favoured the very spiritual Gnostic faith, as Tertullian, and many other early faith leaders did.
These days just these two religions are so vastly different it leaves me wondering where the Holy Spirit was. How come the HS didn't inspire the correct thinking and understanding, and produce the revelations, that were supposed to reaffirm the unity of the early church of Yeshua?

Now, all of the above took place well with in the first 100 years after Yeshua died, and the alterations, disagreements and schisms that have led on from those first few changes to whatever Yeshua originally taught have grown in number and variety, so much so that I doubt even Yehsua himself, were he here today, would be able to identify the religion named after him. What would he have thought of Joseph Kony's Army of God in Africa? Or Joseph Smith's Mormonism? He would have wept.

Whatever solid edifice of organised faith and worship you believe in Vasily, I have serious doubts that it is anything like what Yehsua had ever intended. As I understand it, Yeshua originally just wanted Jews to be nice to each other and to stop to sacrificing furry little animals and be strict vegetarians. The gentiles did not seem to matter in his apocalyptic vision of the world. With Paul's psychotic ambition to be a holy man, the gentiles managed to plunder the attraction of the original teachings.

Would I embrace Christianity if it were proven to be true?

No. I've read too much history not to be sceptical about, not only this religion, but all religions, and all claims for truth, because of their close proximity to the minds of men. We can be such a bunch of unconscionable liars and ignorant dupes.

David Killens's picture
@Vasily Dimitrivich

@Vasily Dimitrivich

"It always comes down to intelligent or moral reasons a person becomes a Christian or not"

Are you attempting to imply that intelligent and/or moral people are drawn to christianity?

NewSkeptic's picture
Have to state upfront that I

Have to state upfront that I believe it to be damn near impossible that any version of Christianity is correct.

Then, given the question of whether I would follow it if true, I make the assumptions then that eternal heaven and hell are in play as they exist in my head, hell being eternal torment and heaven being eternal worship of this God. My rational choice at that point would be to avoid the eternal torment although the eternal worship is only moderately more enticing.

Yes, I would swallow my moral outrage at the monster that is the Christian god in order to avoid eternal burning.

CyberLN's picture
VD, you asked, “If

VD, you asked, “If Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?”

No. I think I’m too kind, loving, accepting, and generous to accept membership in such a damaging organization (in any of its permutations).

Simon Moon's picture
If the Christian god were

If the Christian god were demonstrated to exist, I would believe his existence (I'd no longer be an atheist), but I would not become a Christian.

Worshipping the genocidal, misogynist, homophobic, slavery condoning being depicted in the Bible, is an anathema to morality. If the Bible is a fair representation of his actions and his nature, he's an immoral thug.

In Spirit's picture
@VD

@VD

No.... IMO, I think that theists miss the possibility that if there is a God that it could actually not be part of any religion.

LogicFTW's picture
@In Spirit

@In Spirit

I think that theists miss the possibility that if there is a God that it could actually not be part of any religion.

Which of the near infinite possibilities of such a "god like entity that requires no evidence," that means the odds that any religion got it anywhere near close to correct, is EXTREMELY remote.

And that of course assumes that there is some sort of "god like entity" at all. Of which we have no way of calculating the odds of such an abstract idea as the various god ideas humans have come up with.

No actual evidence, the "god" idea remains just that, just an idea, of which no action should be taken on that idea except perhaps to look for actual evidence on it if desired.

What people write or say is not evidence, unless what they say can actually be verified. Which excludes any "evidence" I ever heard any religious apologist come up with.

LostLocke's picture
I'm going to say no. The god

I'm going to say no. The god of the Bible (Yahweh/Jehovah) is a war god. If I'm going to worship a war god I can think of a few that I'd rather than Jehovah.

Talyyn's picture
@Lostlocke

@Lostlocke

Like Ares lol? It is the only god of war that I know of...But he'd probably been slayed by Kratos so...

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Talyyn

@ Talyyn

Celtic gods of War:

Agrona,
Alaisiagae,
Andarta,
Andraste,
Anann,
Badb,
Bandua,
Belatucadros,
Camulus,
Catubodua,
Cicolluis,
Cocidius,
Macha,
The Morrígan,
Nemain,
Rudianos,
Segomo,
Teutates,

Greek gods of War
Alala, spirit of the war cry
Alke, spirit of courage and battle-strength
Amphillogiai, goddesses of disputes
Androktasiai, spirits of battlefield slaughter
Ares, the main Greek god of war, despised by all the city-states except Sparta
Athena, goddess of wisdom, war strategy, and weaving, more beloved by ancient Greeks than Ares and tutelary deity of Athens, Sparta's rival
Bia, spirit of force and compulsion
Deimos, personification of terror
Enyalius, god of war; in early periods apparently an epithet of Ares, they were differentiated later
Enyo, goddess of war, sometimes appears to be identical to Eris
Eris, goddess of discord and strife
Hera, in the Illiad she has a martial character and fights (and wins) against Artemis; however, this warlike aspect of her appears nowhere else in the surviving corpus, suggesting it was dropped early on
Homados, spirit of the din of battle
Hysminai, female spirits of fighting and combat
Ioke, spirit of onslaught, battle-tumult, and pursuit
Keres, female spirits of violent or cruel death, including death in battle, by accident, murder, or ravaging disease
Kratos, personification of strength and power
Kydoimos, spirit of the din of battle
Makhai, male spirits of fighting and combat
Nike, spirit of victory
Palioxis, spirit of backrush, flight, and retreat from battle
Pallas, Titan god of war-craft and of the springtime campaign season
Perses, the Titan of destruction
Phobos, spirit of panic, fear, flight, and battlefield rout
Phonoi, spirits of murder, killing, and slaughter
Polemos, spirit of war
Proioxis, spirit of onrush and battlefield pursuit

Every culture has/had its war gods, aspects of war gods, and "ex" war gods like hera. YHWH was not even in the top league of gods in the Sumerian pantheon.

See wiki for a list of a thousand more or so gods....

Talyyn's picture
@Old man shouts...

@Old man shouts...

Ohh Yeah! And this is only a list for Europe/Middle-East.

Algebe's picture
@Vasily Dimitrivich If

@Vasily Dimitrivich If Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?

Before I can answer this question, you'd have to tell me what Christianity is so that I can determine whether or not it's true.

One true thing I know about Christianity is that it's a generic term for a sorry collection of old myths and belief systems that have brought endless hate, cruelty, and misery into the world.

Another truth about Christianity is that hats are very important.

It's also true that Christianity has better dress sense than most other religions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMQ4JicUs1A

Cognostic's picture
If Christianity is true the

If Christianity is true the God you worship is a lying asshole with the mind of a 3 year old. Absolutely not. Every time he gets pissed at a group of people he kills them. If you don't do what he wants you to do he kills all your neighbors. Fuck That!

Algebe's picture
@Cognostic: he kills all your

@Cognostic: he kills all your neighbors

Well that may be the only good reason for worshiping god. Neighbors can be hell.

Cognostic's picture
@Algebe: I stand corrected

@Algebe: I stand corrected!

Jo's picture
@ Vasily

@ Vasily

Did you mean, if the Bible was true, would you become a Christian?
I think Christianity is to general of a term and can mean different things to different people.
You asked a great question, just trying to make it a little more clear.

By my calculation, 88% of those who responded, said NO.
Even if Christianity were true they would not become one.
I think that is very revealing.

So much for no bias or opinion on the matter.
Looks like 88% have already decided, and would not change, regardless of the evidence.
Yet they would say that Christian are the one who will not change, even when presented with compelling evidence.

If the Bible is true, than the characterization the 88% made of God is not objective.
They have shown that they already have a belief that they are fully committed to, even when it is opposed to all the evidence.
I don't think that 88% of fundies would say no, if the Bible was shown to be false.

Maybe the two have more in common then they have in differences?

/edited for spelling.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

I don't think that 88% of fundies would say no, if the Bible was shown to be false.

You know how hilarious that comment is, right?

By my calculation, 88% of those who responded, said NO.

Did you not take into consideration that the '88%' you loosely quote would not want to be associated with such a racist, misogynistic, bad tempered murderer as your god? Even if proven true?

Tin-Man's picture
@Jo Re: "Looks like 88% have

@Jo Re: "Looks like 88% have already decided, and would not change, regardless of the evidence."

... LMAO... WOW! Just when I thought you could not possibly out-do all the other bumblings you have already made, here you go proving me wrong!... LMAO... Yep, I admit I totally underestimated your ability to warp what others have said. Because I am quite certain I have stated several times on this site what my stance would be if your god/bible were somehow proven to be true. One, I would obviously no longer be an atheist. I would have to believe in your god if it were somehow shown to be real without any shadow of doubt. However, that does not mean I would worship it. Because if it truly were the god depicted in the bible, I would more likely flip it off and tell it to kiss my ass. So, in that respect, I suppose you could say I would refuse to be a Christian. And by simple default, I would also no longer be an atheist.

I still find it amazing how you are not able to understand such a simple and elementary concept after all the time you have been here. At this point, one is forced to believe you are purposely refusing to listen and comprehend... *chuckle*... Once again, though, thank you for making our (atheists) efforts to help people see the adverse effects of religion so much easier.

David Killens's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

"Looks like 88% have already decided, and would not change, regardless of the evidence."

I would not follow christianity because it is controlled by a vindictive, petulant, bloodthirsty psychotic god. If you can provide new evidence that the christian god is not the one depicted in the bible, then I would be open to changing my opinion.

I always follow the evidence, that is why I have asked many theists (including you) to provide evidence. If no evidence is provided, then I will not change my mind. If valid evidence is provided, then I will definitely give the topic very serious consideration.

Jo, I doubt you can dig yourself any deeper in the cesspool hole you have created, but by you, a theist, stating what atheists think, is just plain stupid, arrogant, and offensive.

Simon Moon's picture
@Jo

@Jo

By my calculation, 88% of those who responded, said NO.
Even if Christianity were true they would not become one.
I think that is very revealing.

And as usual, you have missed the point we were making.

None of those 88% are saying they would remain an atheist. Only that we would not become a Christian. There is a difference that you may be too dense to discern.

So much for no bias or opinion on the matter.
Looks like 88% have already decided, and would not change, regardless of the evidence.
Yet they would say that Christian are the one who will not change, even when presented with compelling evidence.

Oh bloody hell, you are certainly dense.

We are unbiased when it concerns our atheism.

Yes, we would change. We would no longer be atheists.

I have stated this to you many times, I am completely willing to accept that a god exists given demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, and valid and sound logic to support the claim. If the Christian god was demonstrated to exist, my intellectual honesty would force me to to accept his existence.

But there is a difference in becoming Christian and believing the Christian god exists.

If the Bible is an accurate depiction of the Christian god, I would not want anything to do with him. He ordered the Hebrews to slaughter entire towns and had them keep the virgins for themselves, he condoned slavery, he created rules to subjugate women, kill homosecuals, he ordered people working on the Sabbath to be killed, etc, etc. The Old and New Testaments are loaded with immoralities. And any god responsible for them, does not deserve worship.

If the Bible is true, than the characterization the 88% made of God is not objective.
They have shown that they already have a belief that they are fully committed to, even when it is opposed to all the evidence.
I don't think that 88% of fundies would say no, if the Bible was shown to be false.

Yes, the belief I already am committed to, is that the Bible depicts an immoral god.

I am not committed to being an atheist. My atheism is a result of theists not being able to meet their burden of proof to support their claim that a god exists.

Once again, if the Christian god were demonstrated to be true, I would no longer be an atheist. But (here it is spelled out for you), believing the Christian god exists, does not equate to becoming a Christian.

So...

If the murdering Muslim version version of the Abrahamic god were demonstrated to be the true god, and the Quran were proven to be true, would you become a Muslim?

Edited for spelling

Sheldon's picture
Jo "By my calculation, 88%

Jo "By my calculation, 88% of those who responded, said NO. Even if Christianity were true they would not become one. I think that is very revealing."

Maths isn't your forte then. or you have just made up an arbitrary number, either way that claim is pretty hilarious. It's not that revealing as this question has been asked multiple times, and most atheists find the idea of blindly worshipping a deity repugnant, and the deity portrayed in the bible and koran a vile amoral genocidal maniacal megalomaniac. Though of course even as a hypothetical it's a moot question as there is no evidence for any deity.

Jo "So much for no bias or opinion on the matter. Looks like 88% have already decided, and would not change, regardless of the evidence."

It appears your comprehension of English is as execrable as your maths, as that is not remotely what the responses mean at all. I suggest Jo, you get a reasonably literate adult to explain what the OP question means first, then see if you can work out why the responses are not commenting on atheism, which as we know you are utterly obsessed with, and unable to comprehend, even it's basic meaning escapes you. Here's a clue if christianity were true, would you become a christian, is not asking if you would choose to be christian or remain an atheist, as only an illiterate moron would fail to see that ship had sailed if christianity were true.

Jo "Yet they would say that Christian are the one who will not change, even when presented with compelling evidence."

This is an objective fact, as creationists prove when they deny the objective fact of species evolution. Though again this is not even remotely relevant, as the op question is asking if people would become christian in the event it were objectively true, not if they would persist in disbelieving it were true, can your comprehension of a basic premise really be this poor?

JO "If the Bible is true, than the characterization the 88% made of God is not objective.
They have shown that they already have a belief that they are fully committed to, even when it is opposed to all the evidence."

Yes then, you really haven't even a tenuous grasp of what the OP is asking. So once again then, the people who said they would not become a christian if it were true are not saying they would continue to disbelieve it was true you buffoon. Though the hilarity f you lying yet again that atheism is a belief, in the same sentence you falsely accuse others of bias is yet another irony overload.

Jo "Maybe the two have more in common then they have in differences?

/edited for spelling."

Oh dear, more hilarity, try editing it for spelling again, and this time remove the erroneous maths and false assumptions you derive from being unable to understand the question the thread is asking.

You never disappoint Jo, if you were on less of closed minded crusade you might actually learn something, but sadly though you show each time you desperately need to learn, it appears you are determined not to.

Calilasseia's picture
"If Christianity were true,

"If Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?"

The mere fact that you asked this question in such simplistic terms, demonstrates how little thought you actually gave to the question.

I shall leave aside, for this exposition, the fact tha mythological assertions have a habit of being [1] untestable even in principle, let alone in practice, or [2] in the case of the testable assertions, not merely wrong, but fatuous and absurd in the light of modern knowledge. From the standpoint of your question, this is actually the least of your worries, though still a fatally serious one.

More problematic, from the standpoint of your question, is the matter of what Christianity actually is. The Christian narrative consists of many assertions, all presented as purportedly constituting fact. The trouble being that some of those assertions flatly contradict each other. As a corollary, you have to decide which of the members of each pair of mutually contradictory assertions you are going to choose as your definition of "Christianity", an issue that even adherents of the relevant mythology have been unable to agree upon from the outset. By selecting an explicit choice in this regard, you're going to face violent disagreement on the part of those adherents whose selection differs from yours.

Even if we put aside the mutually contradictory assertions for a moment, which is another fatal problem for your question, there still remains the matter, that while there are a small number of essential core assertions, that are a central requirement of the Christan narrative, these core assertions, whilst necessary, are not sufficient to define the Christian narrative in full - those familiar with the world of pure mathematics will understand my use of the relevant terms and their application here. You then have the problem of specifying, in detail, which of the other, subsidiary assertions you're going to include in your particular version of the Christian narrative. Which, again, is a matter that enjoys no consensus among adherents of the requisite mythology.

Even if you succeed in this cataloguing endeavour before persisting, you then have another problem to address. Which centres upon the fact that if the requisite assertions you present did, in some hypothetical future, did all turn out to be true, then why did so much of the knowledge base we have acquired, point emphatically in the opposite direction? At this point, you have the problem of answering why it is, that so many of us who paid attention in class, learned the proper rules of discourse and their application, who exerted diligent effort via said application of said rules, determining the likely status of various assertions and postulates, were apparently so thoroughly misled by observational reality and otherwise error-free deduction in this matter. Which, in that hypothetical future, will be a gargantuan task for you to undertake. Providing proper, substantive reasons why reality chose to throw this most perverse of curve balls at us, will almost certainly be beyond your capabilities.

In particular, you have to provide substantive answers, in that hypothetical future, why the magic entity suddenly determined to be real, arranged for so much of the universe to operate in a manner suggesting strongly that said entity was superfluous to requirements and irrelevant. You also have to answer another awkward question here, namely why this entity, asserted as it is to have our welfare as a major concern, did not take the obvious step of removing that doubt about its existence from the outset, and thus sparing our species millennia of wasted effort and needlessly spilt blood. Glib appeals to "free will" and "faith" won't cut it. While you're at it, you might want to address the matter of why this entity chose mythology as its vehicle for passing on its purported message to us, given that mythology is possibly the most unreliable means of disseminating substantive knowledge that humans have devised.

Take your time on this one. Because I assure you, you'll need it. My initial estimate being around three decades.

Sheldon's picture
If Christianity were true I'd

If Christianity were true I'd be appalled by the cruel barbaric deity it depicts, and so no I would not become a christian and worship it.

cranky47's picture
Which Christianity? There is

Which Christianity? There is a bewildering variety from which to choose.

If A Christianity were proved to be true that would mean the existence of god had been proved.

So, I could no longer be an atheist, and would be a theist . Would I become a christian? Not necessarily, would depend on what would happen if I did not..

Imo a just god would give me the freedom to choose.

IF Christianity were supported by the God of infinite attributes, including justice and compassion, I would probably worship him. Not sure about his weird son.

A more honest answer to what is essentially a facile and shallow minded hypothetical is; How the fuck could I possibly have any idea about what I might do? Throughout my life, I have often reacted very differently to events than I had thought. Sometimes that's been a good thing. Other times, not so much . .

Short answer: I don't know

Tin-Man's picture
This is a wonderful video

This is a wonderful video explaining how truly wonderful and rewarding Christianity can be for everybody. You just have to give it a chance...

https://youtu.be/fDp7pkEcJVQ

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.