Is it better to be an atheist or be part of a wrong religion? (See the senario posed below.)?

Question

My Sunday School teacher made this comment yesterday as we were discussing 1 Corinthians 1 - 6. He said, It's better to not believe than to be part of a wrong belief system. In a lot of the lesson he was drawing parallels between the philosphies, and polytheistic beliefs of the Greeks at the time. He also posed the question How is this relevant today? Meaning, can we learn from what happened to the early Christians and Paul having to deal with people who were trying to contaminate Christianity with teachings of "I am a student of _____(anyone other than Jesus Christ)", to include the many splinter groups of Christianity? Is it better, do you think, to be part of a group that has SOME correct principles, and SOME wrong principles, or to not be a part of any group unless they have and teach ONLY ALL the correct principles?

Please, no touting one religion over another, or atheism over everything else. Thanks.

Interesting responses. It got the attention of many more atheists than I thought it would. I'd be interested to know more of the thoughts of believers (of any religion) as well.
My personal belief on this issue is kind of muddled. While I see that waiting for a religion to know EVERTHING will mean never being part of a religion, because even those who have open cannon (and thus in my opinion more willing to change), by their own admission do not know EVERYTHING, as they believe that God reveals things line upon line, here a little and there a little. But at the other end of the spectrum to not believe in anything just because they don't have ALL truth is just as bad, as those with some truth - when they live it to their best ability are, as others have pointed out, living better than those who reject it all because it's not complete. I think belief is ever changing. Those who learn, live in accordance with those beliefs, then learn more and repeat are more likely to get it right than

those who are firmly rooted at either end of the spectrum. I think we need to strive for balance between the extremes of all or nothing and blind obediance to most principles just because they got it right on a few. I'm not sure my teacher got it right, but I can see his point. Another point he made which I do agree with is truth is taught and comes from God. If it isn't from God it's from the devil, or if it doesn't follow the teaching of God, then it's not truth.

And to the person who said that believers tend to lump all atheists into one group and don't give them credit for the truths they do have - I suppose you're right to an extent. Many of us can't understand where atheists are coming from, so we view them through the prism of what we do know - trying to categorize them as we do believers: Christians generally believe this, Jews generally believe that, Muslims believe this way, Eastern religions believe that way, etc. It's the way we think, it doesn't make it right or wrong.

Answer 1

Athiesm is a religion in itself. I really don't think Satan cares what direction you fall, as long as you fall away from truth.

To answer your question, I think to associate with a group that is the most accurate to the truth is better than to disassociate from all groups because they don't have all the truth. That is a tough question to answer though.

Answer 2

It is only obvious that if you use God's word to test what you believe and against what it says that you can come to a correct understanding of what God requires of you.
The problem arises when leaders of your faith or any faith correct your thinking with the teachings of men.
For example they make no distinction between who goes to heaven and who will live on earth, or why some go to heaven and some don't. Jesus said that the meek would inherit the earth Mathew 5:5, because he knew what God had promised at Psalms 37:9-11,29.
Those who go to heaven will have a job to do there? Revelation 5:10
Man's thinking has been corrupted for a long time now, almost two thousand years, ever since the apostasy started in John's day. This does not mean you can not find the truth, just ask questions and study God's word, if you are not sure as to what's right keep looking it will be revealed to you.
Put your trust in God's word, but make sure that you are reading it in spirit and in truth.

Answer 3

I think if you take your question one step farther, you'll have your answer. Who decides which "principles" are "correct" or "incorrect?" Take an issue like the death penalty. Some religions are against it, some aren't. Same with birth control. It is a matter of personal opinion as to what you believe in these, and other principles. So, do you shop around for a religion that allows you to live how you like? And then accept every other teaching of that religion because you have to? Better then, I believe, to be a non-believer, than to perhaps be part of a religion where you may disagree with everything EXCEPT those issues you choose to make a priority. I would perhaps agree with the teacher: unless you are willing to embrace ALL a faith teaches, which may not allow you to live how you like, you shouldn't be a part of that religion, or any other.

Answer 4

I think that the comments that being of one religion that is wrong can make you worse off than if you have no religion or deny the existence of God assumes a lot and is not backed by doctrine. I believe that every person should act according to their light. If all someone knows is a religion that is not entirely correct, and they act on it and do good, I do not see how this can be a bad thing. I believe that we will be held accountable for what we have been given the opportunity to know, and that everyone will one day be given the chance to know and act on the full truth.

I do think that if two people are living the same life, but one person has been given a greater understanding or belief in God than the other, then this person is worse off than the person who may know nothing of God. I hope that makes sense. Basically it is like D&C 82:3 says: "For of him unto whom much is given much is required; and he that sins against the greater light shall receive the greater condemnation"

The bottom line is that we are just to act on what we know. If all someone knows is a partial truth then I doubt it would be right for them to deny the truth of that part, because of the fallacies of other parts. On the other hand, if someone thinks that they may not have the full truth, they should keep their minds and ears open and search for the full truth.

Answer 5

Is it better to believe fiction or truth? Should you be believing in the first place, or to say it differently, why should you believe in anything?

In the "closed path" religions i.e. our way is the only way; you'd get answers that no, you should believe in the only, right way otherwise you're doomed; while in "open path" religions you're more likely to get "It is up to you to determine what you believe in."

I prefer a more rational approach: if there is evidence I'll consider belief and given enough evidence I'll accept as truth but will understand that it may change.

Edit:
A good example of "belief being dangerous" is in the statement "Atheism is a religion", people that make statements like this obviously can not conceive of any condition outside of belief and try to force every thing into the classification of belief and religion.

Answer 6

You are implying people who are atheists collectively adhere to a set of beliefs besides realizing there are no gods. Wrong. Depending on the person, we have as many correct principles as wrong ones as anyone else. Religion does not have a monopoly on correct principles (if it did we'd still be in the Dark Ages, since theism often opposes scientific advancement). If it did, you wouldn't have a PC, or any of the other technologies and comforts you enjoy. What you are citing is formally known as Pasal's Wager, which has been shown to actually increase the likelihood that if you accept the wager, you have picked the wrong religion. Does God forgive such ambivelence?

Answer 7

What your Sunday school teacher stated and you quoted here was not in the official manual for teaching the lesson. It was their opinion only. I participated in the same lesson discussion somewhere else, that did not come up.
The church lessons overall do teach that false teachings draw people away from true teachings some times, but they also use the true principals people already know, to build upon when teaching them.
I have the opinion it is better to have a partially correct belief system then none at all. In reality when we say we are constantly learning and our testimony is growing what we are really saying is "I learned something new, and I had a belief in something that now i know was not totally correct before now." We learn line upon line and precept up precept, not all at one time.

Answer 8

I assume that your teacher regards worshipping a 'false god' as more heinous than worshipping no god at all. Fair enough, for the sake of argument. Seems to me that you have to consider these statements in the light of three possibilities:

1 Your religion is the 'right' one.
2 Another religion is the 'right' one.
3 Atheism is correct.

Only if option 1 is true are these statements true. In both other cases they're dangerously incorrect.

I don't consider the main statement to be particularly wise or useful, on that ground alone. And of course I consider it utterly wrong in a real-world context, because there is no god.

CD

Answer 9

I believe your Sunday School teacher was correct.
In order to believe a religion, you've got to have evidence for it. And if you feel there is not enough evidence underpinning a certain religious belief, then you should wait before you commit yourself to it.

If you are uncertain about something, unbelief should be the default position until confirming evidence presents itself.

-- The above assumes that your Sunday school teacher is also correct about the truth of Christianity and the falsehood of the teachings of the philosophers, of which I have grave doubts... but according to his presuppositions I agree that atheism (skeptism) would have been the better position to take.

Answer 10

Most people, atheists or not, have some understanding of truth. The result depends on what we do with that understanding.

We will achieve the purposes of earth life as we, 1) continue to search for truth, 2) bring our lives into compliance with what we believe to be true.

As we do this, we will be led to greater and greater knowledge and understanding of the truth.

Answer 11

You see. That's where delusional thought comes into play with religion. This idea that one has a choice about which is better, to believe wrong or not to believe at all. When you figure out that a rational thought process and not delusional faith and belief guide you you'll be in a much better place in my opinion. And you will have really come along way when you no longer need a church sermon to spark your thinking.