I found the following nonsense coming out of Capturing Christianity on his social media platforms:
Atheism doesn’t offer hope in the face of suffering. Christianity does.
This is the kind of crap I would expect out of a child, so let me be blunt here. So what? How is this anything more than an appeal to consequences fallacy? What does the hope that a belief offers you tell you about whether the belief is true? Does Cameron really believe it is a sound epistemology to believe what gives you hope?
If I was to ask a drunk if they’re happy, I’m sure many of them would tell me that they are (at least while they’re intoxicated.) Should I, as a result of this, keep myself in a drunken stupor, and ignore the reality of my liver? I don’t think my life would be made better by being drunk all the time, and in the same way I don’t see that my life is made better by accepting a proposition because it offers me some kind of hope.
To believe our lives are better by embracing happy thoughts, rather than the truth, is childish at best. It’s like believing that the problems of the world go away by pulling the wool over your own eyes. Reality doesn’t care about what makes you happy. Grow up, and learn to deal with reality.