I can deny it no longer...

[rosey]

I recently finished a book titled I don't have enough faith to be an Atheist. The book lists not only the major holes in atheism, (which I knew very little of when I was an atheist) but the logic and rationality of the Christian religion. I am confident that the only way I could have rejected what this book says is by living in complete denial of the facts it presents... maybe I should have been . After reading this book, and consulting with some of my family, I have decided to convert to Christianity.

I would recomend this book to both Christians and atheists alike, as a faith strengthener, and as a converter.

[rosey]

My grandmother send that book to me when she found out I was an atheist. She also sent the Case for Christ, New Evidence that Demands a Verdict and the Left Behind series.

After reading them, I went from an apathetic atheist to an activist atheist. I could not believe the lies, deceptions, horrible mangled logic and the assault on reason promoted by these books. They are really bad.

I would suggest that you present some of the stuff that really bothered you about atheism for discussion. You are getting a very one-sided version that in a lot of cases is misleading and in some places is just a lie.

I don't care if you convert from atheist, just don't do it based on bad data.

What really bothered me about Atheism? Well, it was mainly the idea that nothing matters. I realized, if everything that is, turns to nothing when it no longer is, and it is therefore as if it never existed, and eventually everything passes away, I realized having morals was completely ridiculous. You get one life. Spend it however you want to. Why live by rules if you only get a relatively short time on earth before you just drop dead and are forgotten? But of course a world where everyone does what they feel like doing is going to get out of hand fast. I then started to realize that morals were necessary, and not just objective morals, but absolute. Rape will always be wrong. Sane women today don't want to be raped, sane women yesterday didn't want to be raped, and sane women tomorrow won't want to be raped. However, absolute morals require a moral "setter", if you will. Thus I was able to rationally reach God, along with a great amount of reading and listening.

[Darias]

My grandmother send that book to me when she found out I was an atheist. She also sent the Case for Christ, New Evidence that Demands a Verdict and the Left Behind series.

After reading them, I went from an apathetic atheist to an activist atheist. I could not believe the lies, deceptions, horrible mangled logic and the assault on reason promoted by these books. They are really bad.

I would suggest that you present some of the stuff that really bothered you about atheism for discussion. You are getting a very one-sided version that in a lot of cases is misleading and in some places is just a lie.

I don't care if you convert from atheist, just don't do it based on bad data.

What really bothered me about Atheism? Well, it was mainly the idea that nothing matters. I realized, if everything that is, turns to nothing when it no longer is, and it is therefore as if it never existed, and eventually everything passes away, I realized having morals was completely ridiculous. You get one life. Spend it however you want to. Why live by rules if you only get a relatively short time on earth before you just drop dead and are forgotten? But of course a world where everyone does what they feel like doing is going to get out of hand fast. I then started to realize that morals were necessary, and not just objective morals, but absolute. Rape will always be wrong. Sane women today don't want to be raped, sane women yesterday didn't want to be raped, and sane women tomorrow won't want to be raped. However, absolute morals require a moral "setter", if you will. Thus I was able to rationally reach God, along with a great amount of reading and listening.

1 let me address this point: Haven mentioned the authors of the book were young earth Creationists, and if you insist on being a Christian, you need not accept Creationism. I recommend The Language of God by Francis Collins. He is a fundamentalist Christian, but as a scientist is opposed to Creationist and ID thought. His logical reasons for finding Christianity true are beyond me and many of his peers, but his science is sound, as far as Evolution goes. Dawkins and Collins are both Evolutionist but they argue philosophical ideas about purpose and god in their work... as Ken Miller explains (also a theist who is a strong opponent of ID and Creationism)

What really bothered me about Atheism? Well, it was mainly the idea that nothing matters. I realized, if everything that is, turns to nothing when it no longer is, and it is therefore as if it never existed, and eventually everything passes away, I realized having morals was completely ridiculous.

2 I strongly disagree with your interpretation of what Atheism is. If this definition you give is your primary motivation for conversion, well, I think I can understand where you are coming from and why you sought out something else. However, we need to look at this again.

First, Atheism, is essentially a lack of belief in gods. Positive Atheism is the assertion without evidence that there are no gods -- what I would consider a faith claim. In general most Atheists are Agnostic-Atheist or soft Atheists who do not make such claims.

Apart from this definition, one's philosophy on life is up to the individual. Atheism should not be confused with moral nihilism.

You get one life. Spend it however you want to. Why live by rules if you only get a relatively short time on earth before you just drop dead and are forgotten? But of course a world where everyone does what they feel like doing is going to get out of hand fast.

3 Of course, you get one earthly life; as far as science is concerned that's the only life we can be certain of. Make it count. WHY? Because if no one gave a damn, it would suck for everyone.

In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

— "Chapter XIII.: Of the Natural Condition of Mankind As Concerning Their Felicity, and Misery.", Leviathan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes#Leviathan

So based on this, some set of morals are required to alleviate total "hell" on earth.

I then started to realize that morals were necessary, and not just objective morals, but absolute. Rape will always be wrong. Sane women today don't want to be raped, sane women yesterday didn't want to be raped, and sane women tomorrow won't want to be raped.

4 Morals are necessary for well-being on this planet, whether a god exists or not. Betterment of the human condition and well-being seem like a good thing, in terms of a universal good -- that is the foundation for an objective standard if there ever was one -- and when I say objective, I mean it in sort of a universal sense, something that actually means something to humanity as a whole.

We can conclude in quite an objective way -- only by the light of science and by ignoring religious traditions of the past that rape is bad. Rape is bad because it is a most intimate violation of women or men -- who are rational and conscious creatures. I don't want this done to me so I will not do it to others. This moral is at its core built on reciprocity -- quite instinctual in most humans, apart from those who have frontal lobe disorders or those who were taught the behavior.

This is also why we've determined that human rights are the best way to achieve common good. Sacrificing individuals for "the greater good" is a bad idea because it creates a fear of losing rights and freedoms. It is why we consider it evil to kill a healthy man for his organs in order to save several others. So when I say common good, I am not making any reference to utilitarian ethics; I'm a Kant fan myself. But I digress... Human rights, individual rights and respect for human life are the best ways to achieve a world that looks wholly different from that which Hobbes described.

However, absolute morals require a moral "setter", if you will. Thus I was able to rationally reach God, along with a great amount of reading and listening.

5 While I agree that establishing law requires law enforcement, which may or may not encourage adherence to the law; authorities exist to protect society from those who lack a moral compass because of religious or mental reasons. But power, authority and might should never be equated with morality

Rape is not bad because God said it was bad. Might and authority are not good foundations for morality and objective good. Might does not make right. The same God who you claim hates rape is the same God who told us to stone homosexuals.

Herein lies the problem. Morality should not be a contest of he said, she said, god said, as we see with competing religions today. Truth claims mean nothing if they cannot be based on evidence. I may claim that a certain food and style of dress is good but if I have no evidence to back that up apart from cultural preference, then my moral truth claim should not be adhered to.

Morality, or anything close to something like Objective morality -- something that could be universally adhered to -- this should be based on reality.

There also should not be one right answer to all moral questions. Is lying bad or good? Well that depends on the circumstance. If it means you're saving someones life -- its good. If it means you're deceiving someone else for personal gain, it's bad.

Sometimes there is more than one moral answer to questions of morality, but whatever they may be they must be grounded in reality.

And Unlike Francis Collins, I agree with Sam Harris in that I think science should not be barred from the discussion of morality that religions seem to have a monopoly over. We should not place false limits on science. Science can give us answers and a basis for things that hit much closer to home than the beginnings of the universe -- something like a rational basis for morality.
[center]
[youtube][/youtube][/center]


6 A God is not required for morals, nor is it required for universal morals or objective right and wrongs. We know that doing certain things are beneficial to the common good and doing other things are very very harmful.

I find the idea of appealing to a God for a need of a cosmic objective morality as unsatisfying. If everything god commands is moral because of his power, and if he is objective because he is omnipotent, then he can command anything and label it as good -- such as the genocides of the Old Testament. What good would his standard be to humans then? Omnipotent objectivity renders our sense of right and wrong as null and invalid. It bastardizes human concepts of right and wrong... it is the very reason why homophobia is considered loving by many Christians.

If I say dashing infants upon rocks is grossly immoral, and God, the "objective law giver" declares this as pleasing and good. Who is wrong? Me for imagining how horrible it would be if I lost my child in such a barbaric way? Or God for exercising his omnipotent and mysterious ways?

If God is right then "right and wrong" has no meaning for human beings apart from divine command, then they are forever lost in his mysterious will.

Morality for humans is based upon consistency, logical reasons, and facts.

Morality for god is whatever the hell he desires.


Do you see the problem here? Just because we need more justice in the world does not mean we should toss our hopes to unevidenced, omnipotent, dictatorial law givers. Just because we should have purpose and happiness in our lives does not mean we have to believe Christianity is true.

[Filthy Tugboat]

My grandmother send that book to me when she found out I was an atheist. She also sent the Case for Christ, New Evidence that Demands a Verdict and the Left Behind series.

After reading them, I went from an apathetic atheist to an activist atheist. I could not believe the lies, deceptions, horrible mangled logic and the assault on reason promoted by these books. They are really bad.

I would suggest that you present some of the stuff that really bothered you about atheism for discussion. You are getting a very one-sided version that in a lot of cases is misleading and in some places is just a lie.

I don't care if you convert from atheist, just don't do it based on bad data.

What really bothered me about Atheism? Well, it was mainly the idea that nothing matters.

And what gave you that idea?

I realized, if everything that is, turns to nothing when it no longer is, and it is therefore as if it never existed, and eventually everything passes away, I realized having morals was completely ridiculous.

Why would having morals be completely ridiculous?

You get one life. Spend it however you want to. Why live by rules if you only get a relatively short time on earth before you just drop dead and are forgotten?

Because not living by rules prevents you from living the way you want to.

But of course a world where everyone does what they feel like doing is going to get out of hand fast.

Which is why following the rules is in your best interest. Your motive for not following your rules is also the motive for following rules. This might be why you went all Nihilistic, you were following a circular train of thought and perhaps didn't notice.

I then started to realize that morals were necessary, and not just objective morals, but absolute.

Realize is probably the wrong word to use here. Morals are necessary for maintaining a stable civilization/society, they are not just necessary.

Rape will always be wrong.

What about in the animal kingdom, rape plays a large role in the actual success of many species. Without rape, those species could die out all together.

Sane women today don't want to be raped, sane women yesterday didn't want to be raped, and sane women tomorrow won't want to be raped.

This is sounding more relative than absolute. Women don't want to be raped, therefore rape is wrong. Relative morality for sure.

However, absolute morals require a moral "setter", if you will.

You might want to support this claim.

Thus I was able to rationally reach God, along with a great amount of reading and listening.

Sorry if it sounds rude but I don't see the rationale in this at all.

[Suluby]

My grandmother send that book to me when she found out I was an atheist. She also sent the Case for Christ, New Evidence that Demands a Verdict and the Left Behind series.

After reading them, I went from an apathetic atheist to an activist atheist. I could not believe the lies, deceptions, horrible mangled logic and the assault on reason promoted by these books. They are really bad.

I would suggest that you present some of the stuff that really bothered you about atheism for discussion. You are getting a very one-sided version that in a lot of cases is misleading and in some places is just a lie.

I don't care if you convert from atheist, just don't do it based on bad data.

What really bothered me about Atheism? Well, it was mainly the idea that nothing matters. I realized, if everything that is, turns to nothing when it no longer is, and it is therefore as if it never existed, and eventually everything passes away, I realized having morals was completely ridiculous.

I don't follow the logic here.

Morals - whether inspired by a religion or not - are necessary for the orderly conduct of society. What will happen to you when you die, or to me when I die, will have no effect on society.

You may think that if you die and become worm food it will be as if you never existed but that is not true. You have touched other human beings in your time alive. If you have children you have changed the world! They will have children and their children will have children ..... and there is permanent evidence that you existed and you affected the world.

You get one life. Spend it however you want to. Why live by rules if you only get a relatively short time on earth before you just drop dead and are forgotten?

Why? Because we are all a part of human society and rules keep the wheels of society greased and everybody on track.

You seem to be looking at only the negative with a bias towards a belief in a specific god. If what you are saying is true, we should have atheists robbing banks every time they want to buy a cup of coffee ..... and they don't. They should be driving the wrong way down one-way streets and running red lights because they want to ..... and they don't. They should be cheating on their spouses ..... yet the divorce rate of atheists/agnostics is much lower than that of BAC's and 'other' Christians.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm/

But of course a world where everyone does what they feel like doing is going to get out of hand fast. I then started to realize that morals were necessary, and not just objective morals, but absolute. Rape will always be wrong. Sane women today don't want to be raped, sane women yesterday didn't want to be raped, and sane women tomorrow won't want to be raped. However, absolute morals require a moral "setter", if you will. Thus I was able to rationally reach God, along with a great amount of reading and listening.

Morals are not absolute.

Scripture says that we shouldn't kill ..... yet a soldier who kills the enemy in war is a hero. If someone breaks into your home and tries to harm your family, killing him/her is seen as a good thing. So we shouldn't kill ..... but sometimes we can - in fact, we should - because it is "the right thing"!

Morality is relative, not absolute ..... so does that mean there can be no moral 'setter'?

.

[PinkNailPolish]

I then started to realize that morals were necessary, and not just objective morals, but absolute.

That sounds like something that you want to be true, not something that is true. While it is a very keen idea that morality could be as simple as black and white, in the real world, every situation is different and requires actual thought, not blind allegiance to a doctrine. Morality is necessary for the existence of any society, however, you haven't adequately explained why empathy and shared experience aren't enough for us to come up with decent laws.

Rape will always be wrong. Sane women today don't want to be raped, sane women yesterday didn't want to be raped, and sane women tomorrow won't want to be raped. However, absolute morals require a moral "setter", if you will. Thus I was able to rationally reach God, along with a great amount of reading and listening.

The god of the Bible isn't even anti-rape. The Bible say that if a woman is raped in the city, she should be stoned to death because she didn't yell for help loud enough (Deuteronomy 22:23-24). Your "absolute moral setter" seems to have set some pretty crappy morals. Rape is wrong, but we don't need some book to tell us that. In spite of what the Bible says, Christians now know that slavery is wrong, that women aren't inferior and that unruly children don't deserve to be put to death. That is the success of secular morality.

[Serpent Oracle]

I am confident that the only way I could have rejected what this book says is by living in complete denial of the facts it presents...

The facts it presents are de facto nonsense and you are not knowledgeable enough to know the difference.

Please cite for me any one line of reasoning derived of 'facts' from your 'book' and I will show you how it is mindless garbage.

That is the strength of my 'faith' in atheism...I have not read your book...but I KNOW I can refute every sentence and paragraph with ease...simply post a single paragraph of your choice, as I have said...and I will demonstrate your mistake.

With total lucidity and clarity.

PS No offence intended, my total and utter hatred for Christianity does not extend to you, but I am 100% serious...and a bit bored.

[rosey]

I am confident that the only way I could have rejected what this book says is by living in complete denial of the facts it presents...

The facts it presents are de facto nonsense and you are not knowledgeable enough to know the difference.

Please cite for me any one line of reasoning derived of 'facts' from your 'book' and I will show you how it is mindless garbage.

That is the strength of my 'faith' in atheism...I have not read your book...but I KNOW I can refute every sentence and paragraph with ease...simply post a single paragraph of your choice, as I have said...and I will demonstrate your mistake.

With total lucidity and clarity.

PS No offence intended, my total and utter hatred for Christianity does not extend to you, but I am 100% serious...and a bit bored.

When I read this post, i couldn't help laughing. Talk about a legend in your own mind.


I can't quote it word for word, but this was one of their arguments I found intriguing.

See, my servant will act wisely[a];
he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted.
14 Just as there were many who were appalled at him—
his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any human being
and his form marred beyond human likeness —
15 so he will sprinkle many nations,[c]
and kings will shut their mouths because of him.
For what they were not told, they will see,
and what they have not heard, they will understand.
53 Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
4 Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
8 By oppression[d] and judgment he was taken away.
Yet who of his generation protested?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was punished.[e]
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes[f] his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
11 After he has suffered,
he will see the light of life[g] and be satisfied[h];
by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,[j]
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,[k]
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.

Isaiah 52:13 - 53:12

They ask, "To whom is this speaking of?" I believe the traditional non-Christian argument is that it is referencing the nation of Israel, not the Christ.

Please point out some point in history where Israel went "like a lamb to the slaughter" willingly. The Israelites were extremely arrogant. They crushed all opposing nations. Please show how that this prophesy is speaking of the nation of Israel.

[rosey]

On another note, Serpent, if I don't like your response can I come over to your house and eat you? After all you are one who believes: "that there are no moral absolutes, that what is "right" and what is "wrong" is entirely in the eye of the beholder."

aren't you?

[Serpent Oracle]

On another note, Serpent, if I don't like your response can I come over to your house and eat you? After all you are one who believes: "that there are no moral absolutes, that what is "right" and what is "wrong" is entirely in the eye of the beholder."

aren't you?

I don't believe that morality is not absolute, I know it isn't.

You may attempt to eat 'me' (I have no moral objection) but I would retain the legal right to prevent you from doing so...with lethal force if necessary...simply because I don't want to be eaten.
Attempting to eat me would of course be a criminal act because in the society I live in we have collectively agreed that eating people is unacceptable...this has nothing to with morality and entirely to do with law and order.

What you think is right and wrong I am 100% certain is very different from what I think is right and wrong....and very different from what Islam says is right and wrong or what Buddism says is right and wrong...

Your belief that there is an absolute right and wrong is a laughable testament to your parochial and subjective mind.

[Serpent Oracle]

When I read this post, i couldn't help laughing. Talk about a legend in your own mind.

I could not care less what you think or how much you laugh, you are nothing to me.
I am not dependent on the approval of others.

I can't quote it word for word, but this was one of their arguments I found intriguing.

See, my servant will act wisely[a];
he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted.
14 Just as there were many who were appalled at him—
his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any human being
and his form marred beyond human likeness —
15 so he will sprinkle many nations,[c]
and kings will shut their mouths because of him.
For what they were not told, they will see,
and what they have not heard, they will understand.
53 Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
4 Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
8 By oppression[d] and judgment he was taken away.
Yet who of his generation protested?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was punished.[e]
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes[f] his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
11 After he has suffered,
he will see the light of life[g] and be satisfied[h];
by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,[j]
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,[k]
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.

Isaiah 52:13 - 53:12

They ask, "To whom is this speaking of?" I believe the traditional non-Christian argument is that it is referencing the nation of Israel, not the Christ.

Please point out some point in history where Israel went "like a lamb to the slaughter" willingly. The Israelites were extremely arrogant. They crushed all opposing nations. Please show how that this prophesy is speaking of the nation of Israel.

I have no idea what you are talking about...there is no evidence for the truth of Christianity in the verses quoted, whatever they are interpreted as.

There is as far as I can see simply a dispute between the beliefs that they refer to Christ or Israel, I could not care less... biblical verses are not evidence of anything regardless, they could state the Moon is made of Cheese and again I simply would not care...verses are meaningless and of ZERO importance, they have no empirical value whatsoever.

Please provide a rational argument for the 'truth' of Christianity from this book.

I am not interested in anti semitic drivel or absurd prophecies...

Save your biblical verses for someone who gives them the credence they do not deserve.