If God doesn't exist, is it still beneficial to believe in Him?

If God doesn't exist, is it still beneficial to believe in Him?

No.

Beneficial to whom? The believer? Society? Beneficial today, or throughout history?

Consider the people who believe that without the command of some supernatural god, murder isn't wrong. Those people need something to curtail their baser instincts. Society benefits from their belief even if it is false.

However, absent religion, perhaps other mechanisms would arise to curtail such antisocial tendencies. Society might be far better off without the destructive baggage mass religion brings, even if it had to absorb some aberrant behavior. But that is an experiment that cannot be made.

Personally, I think anyone capable of a modicum of analytic thinking is better off with the truth. Sadly, not everyone has that capability, nor can everyone handle the truth.

Not sure it is an experiment that could not happen, in Europe and the UK religion is dying out, in Scotland more people do not believe in deities than believe, church attendance goes down and down and the churches are being converted into attractive houses, in the USA which is a lot more religious than the UK, the murder rate is of 4.8 per 100,000 in the UK a murder rate of 1.15 per 100,000 a third of the American murder rate, so religion is not the restraining force some would like us to believe.

I meant beneficial for believer. Belief solves some of the "big" questions, such as meaning of life, death, purpose f olife, morality, and so on. dont have time now. 

If belief "solves" the big questions, it may (does, IMO) do so incorrectly. Does one get partial credit for wrong answers?

What is the meaning of life? Is it to simply fully live? Or is it to simply worship God? Are there any benefits or downsides to either answer?

What is death?  The end of consciousness, or the transition to a supernatural life? Nonexistence, or heaven and hell? (In this forum, I'm discounting all but the atheistic/Christian views. There are other beliefs.) Is one answer necessarily more comforting than the other?

Morality? As we can see in other threads, this is a quagmire for either perspective. Religion may offer an apparently simple answer, but is that simplicity adequate or even justifiable?

It's like the way I play chess. What I thought was a good move may turn out to be the beginning of my ruination. Happens to me far too often in chess. Of course, I do not fully understand chess.

That may be a benefit to the believer, the absolutely certain conviction that one has access to the complete truth. If that is seen as a benefit. I prefer alignment to reality, even though that may often be unpleasant. And, as an atheist, I accept a degree of uncertainty. Absolute certainty in any belief strikes me as an imprisonment, not a benefit.

zeloplesnivsir wrote: "The point is that the answers may as well be incorrect, but still are answers."
I contend that answers, albeit different answers, are available to the atheist as well, if the contrary is your supposition. And, an incorrect answer may not be of any real benefit whatsoever. Unless there is an assumed benefit in self delusion, I do not think your statement is logically sufficient.

zeloplesnivsir wrote: "With belief, you HAVE a meaning of life, and that is the benefit."

Again, are you implying that an atheist cannot have any meaning in life, a priori? I strongly disagree. And there can be many beliefs - are they all equivalent? One person might believe the meaning of life is to acquire wealth. Another might only value sensual pleasure. Another might find meaning in physical denigration as a way to spiritual fulfillment. Do these all have equal benefit to their believers?

zeloplesnivsir wrote: "One does solve the fear from death and the other doesn't."

Sorry, your presumption is not correct. My atheism frees me from the fear of death, as I find nonexistence nothing to be afraid of (not saying my view holds for all others). And I know many theists who fear death and eternal damnation terribly.

zeloplesnivsir wrote: "Maybe it's not, but that simple answer can offer relative stability in life."

Ah, are you saying that stability in life is an absolute goal? I'd rather a frank honesty, even if it does not lead to stability.

Is the original question a variation of Pascal's Wager? I presume everyone here is familiar with the wager and it's arguments pro and con. If not, a web search should bring up plenty of material.

No, Pascal's wager is mainly about afterlife and includes an option that God exists. I'm not thinking about whether God or afterlife exist, but if it is beneficial to believe in Him.

Pascal's wager: Believe. If God exists, you will be rewarded. And if He doesn't? You will get nothing, but at least you were in this lottery with the amazing prize.

Of course, Pascal's wager does not include all the other gods and is therefore poorly reasoned. Even if we knew for certain that christian God exists, the possibilities of picking the right version would be very small. If you worship the wrong god, the one that really exist is at least as angry on you as if you were an atheist.

"I contend that answers, albeit different answers, are available to the atheist as well, if the contrary is your supposition. And, an incorrect answer may not be of any real benefit whatsoever. Unless there is an assumed benefit in self delusion, I do not think your statement is logically sufficient."

Answers are available to atheists, but are not absolute and some may not find them despite their availability. Theists can be sure about their answers because they come from god and from sacred texts, but the athists's answers might be more changeable for the fact that there is no absolute basis for their answers.

I do think that there is a benefit in self delusion, if it leads to solving one's big answers.

I haven't adressed the question: "What is beneficial for a human?" I think happiness is the only real benefit, all people strive for it. Every act you commit in a life is either such that (you think) will make you happier, such that (you think) will make you less sad, or an instict one.

Does knowing the answers (even if they are wrong) make you happier? I don't know. Perhaps it's boring if you think you know everything and quite horrible if you feel that your answers are somehow endangered, but compare that to not knowing what is your purpose, what is the meaning of things and fear of death. It is intriguing to face the truth, to seek life's answers for oneself, but then you don't have stability. You say you would rather have honesty, and of course, stability is not the final goal of life. But people really flourish only in stable environment and if you have in yourself thougts that make you unstable, you can hardly live in one. But how to define flourishing?

zeloplesnivsir wrote: "Answers are available to atheists, but are not absolute ..."

I do not understand this requirements that answers be absolute, except that supposed absolutes are in the realm of the supernatural and therefore require a theistic perspective a priori.

zeloplesnivsir wrote: "Theists can be sure about their answers because they come from god ... "

No theist can be sure - they can only believe with certainty, but there is no real foundation for that certainty. There are beliefs which are opposed to other beliefs, sometimes across different religions, and sometimes within the same religion, yet the various believers hold to the same certainty as the others. They can't all be correct, can they?

zeloplesnivsir, not saying the following is your stand - I'm just extrapolating from the principle of absolutes. I am always highly suspicious when a mere mortal claims to possess complete knowledge of divine will. It strikes me as people trying to control God. Such hubris rarely ends well.

zeloplesnivsir wrote: "... and from sacred texts"

So many sacred texts, and some contradict each other, so how can anyone be absolutely sure they're believing in the correct one?

I feel, in my opinion, that this need for absolutes is misplaced, and in the long run, counterproductive and the source of much suffering. Faith, in a conviction held with absolute certainty, tends to make any alternative view of that conviction appear as a threat. The typical response to a perceived threat is hostility. A most unfortunate aspect of human nature.

zeloplesnivsir wrote: "I haven't adressed the question: "What is beneficial for a human?" I think happiness is the only real benefit, all people strive for it. Every act you commit in a life is either such that (you think) will make you happier, such that (you think) will make you less sad, or an instict one."

A question for the ages.

I don't know your background, but I presume you are a home schooled Christian from your participation in this forum. As you ponder this question, keep an open mind. You may find that your views change and become more nuanced as others come to depend on you, and as the consequences of your thoughts and actions have a greater impact on those around you.

I am, in fact, an atheist.

No. If God doesn't exist than believing in him is pointless. Christians like me and athesists will agree with this.

Did you read ANY of comments written before?

yes, your point?

I, as an atheist, agree with the statement.