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.

[Mr. LongView]

Well...

I'm not sure, but I will order it.
Thanks.

[Goat]

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.

That particular book as a number of very serious holes in in. It most seriously misrepresented the science (particularly the chapters on evolution), and it totally misrepresented the 2nd law of thermodynamics. A lot of it was playing the philosophical word games that I have no patience for because it is fluff and nonsense. I would say it is written for people who are don't know science and won't wince at the mistakes, are impressed by slick presentation and word games, and already want to believe or believe already.

[Haven]

Rosey, I won't try to convert you back to atheism (I know what it's like to long for something to believe in), and I hope you find happiness, joy, and fulfillment in your new faith. Good luck -- I mean it!

As for the book itself, it does not stand up to scientific or philosophical scrutiny. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek are hardcore fundamentalists; Biblical inerrantists and young-earth creationists. Fundamentalism, inerrantism, and certainly creationism are demonstrably false, and they require not only faith but either ignorance of the evidence or willful blindness to it. Agnostic atheism, in contrast, is a negative position, requiring no faith at all.

I'd love to get a "book discussion" going on it here, if anyone else is interested.

[Filthy Tugboat]

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.

The "facts" it presents are laughably inaccurate and demonstrably false. The book was a poor attempt at science, philosophy and even Bible study. I certainly recommend you pick different apologists to listen to, by all means stick to Christianity but please, for the love of God (ha!) recognize these blundering dishonest idiots for what they are.

[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.

That particular book as a number of very serious holes in in. It most seriously misrepresented the science (particularly the chapters on evolution), and it totally misrepresented the 2nd law of thermodynamics. A lot of it was playing the philosophical word games that I have no patience for because it is fluff and nonsense. I would say it is written for people who are don't know science and won't wince at the mistakes, are impressed by slick presentation and word games, and already want to believe or believe already.

Have you actually read the book? If so, would you please point out the "major" holes, for my better scrutiny.

[Filthy Tugboat]

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.

That particular book as a number of very serious holes in in. It most seriously misrepresented the science (particularly the chapters on evolution), and it totally misrepresented the 2nd law of thermodynamics. A lot of it was playing the philosophical word games that I have no patience for because it is fluff and nonsense. I would say it is written for people who are don't know science and won't wince at the mistakes, are impressed by slick presentation and word games, and already want to believe or believe already.

Have you actually read the book? If so, would you please point out the "major" holes, for my better scrutiny.

I'll let Goat tackle the scientific problems with the book, butm I would be happy to demonstrate the philosophical problems with it.

To start with we can take the Cosmological argument and show why their attempt at logically demonstrating God's existence is ineffectual.

Cosmological Argument

•A. everything that had a beginning had a cause

•B. the universe had a beginning

• C. therefore, the universe had a cause.

Evidence that the universe had a beginning: SURGE- five lines of powerful scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning

S-second law of thermodynamics
U-universe is expanding
R-radiation afterglow
G-great galaxy seeds
E-Einstein’s general relativity

This argument is out from the get go because it uses an equivocation in the term "beginning". They assert that everything that has a beginning has a cause (the law of causality). But what they mean by beginning is conceptual, not actual. my life began at some point in time and was caused by the copulation of my parents which resulted in the conception of me, this isn't to say the matter that I am made of came into existence at the time of my conception or during my growth, it means that matter was caused (by my conception) to change in a way that produced what I refer to as my life. They then equivocate this meaning of "beginning" and assert that therefore when the universe began (entered existence) it must have had a cause in the same way conception caused my life. It is not the same and cannot be held to mean the same thing. As of yet there is no reliable account of matter coming into existence and subsequently there is no reason to believe that it can happen or that if it did it would require a cause. They also misinterpret what is meant by the universe beginning. There is no evidence to suggest that at some point the universe and everything it is made of did not exist in some form or other. The "beginning" of the universe as it is referred to by many scientists is used conceptually. We know that the universe underwent a massive expansion 14 billion years ago what it expanded from is unknown and perhaps unknowable. Will continue on with the teleological and moral arguments later.

[Filthy Tugboat]

Teleological (Design) Argument:
A.every design had a designer
B. the universe and life have highly complex design
C. therefore, the universe and life had a designer

It starts off begging the question with premise (A) and (B). The assertion that the universe and life have a highly complex design is a form of word game given their implication from premise (A) that designs have designers, they have assumed their conclusion in the premises by using this terminology. They should have shown that the universe was designed prior to assuming it in the premise.

if you found a watch in the woods, would you think it was made by natural law? No, there has to be watchmaker.

Indeed, as most are aware, a watch is an irregular object that requires irregular forces to construct. Natural forces simply do not act in a way that would produce a watch. This is common knowledge. The universe is not comparable because the natural forces do act in a way that would produce the modern universe, we know erosion causes valleys and canyons, we know earchquakes are produces by the tectonic plates, we know the moon's gravity controls the tides. This argument and the references to Mt. Rushmore, the Grand Canyon and a sand castle are all ridiculous and silly. Especially the freaking sand castle because I personally have built a sand castle that can easily be and often is reproduced by nature, mostly because it's just a mound of sand with a stick(It's a bloody flag I tell ya) lodged in the top. Irregularly shaped objects are often not produced by nature because the natural forces are regular, they do not behave in ways that would produce and allign gears to work in a clock or produce faces that are a solid and good resemblance to famous and/or historical peoples.

Anthropic principle- the universe was precisely tweaked to support life on earth (so that man could exist). Our measurement capabilities are getting better all the time and we realize how precise everything is. 8 examples of precision:

1.Oxygen level: comprises 21% of the atmosphere. If it were 25%, fires would erupt; if it were 15% humans would suffocate.

2. If the universe was expanding at a rate 1 millionth more slowly than it is, Earth would not exist.

3. If the gravitational force were altered by one part in 10 to the 40th power, the sun would not exist, and the moon would crash into earth or shear off into space.
-Tape measure across the universe- gravity set at one place. If gravity was moved one inch, there would be no life.

4. Our position in the solar system – if we were closer, we would burn up. If we were farther away, we would freeze.

5.Axial tilt of the earth- if it was not 23 ½° we would not be here. The moon keeps us at that tilt. Otherwise, we would wobble and be extremely cold or hot.

6.If earth’s rotation was not 24 hours, we would not be here. If it was faster the wind velocity across the surface of the earth would be too great, if it was slower, it would get too hot during the day and too cold at night. 25:00

7.Jupiter- If it was not in its current orbit, we would not be here. If its orbit was more elliptical than circular it would pull us out of our circular orbit making us either to close or too far from the Sun. It also acts as a cosmic vacuum cleaner attracting meteors and space junk to it, rather than to us.

8.The average distance between stars in our galaxy is 30,000,000,000,000 (trillion) miles. That distance is needed for earth to exist in its present life supporting position. How far is 30,000,000,000,000 miles? On the space shuttle moves 5 miles per second. At that rate it would take us 201,450 years to get there.

I highly doubt most of these claims but that's irrelevant, the point remains the same, things are the way they are and if they were different life probably wouldn't exist. This is one of the more ridiculous arguments for a few reasons, one of them is that it proposes things could have been different which depending on their reasoning for doing so could be entirely circular. The major flaw is that it places an absurdly high prioirity on life. Why is it remarkable that this universe has these universal constraints? Even if it could have been different, these constraints had to exist to some degree, why is it remarkable that they exist to this degree? Because life can exist? Why is that more remarkable than life not existing? It's an unjustified assumption that this universe is special and the argument falls apart without that basis. If this universe is no more remarkable or special than any other then it would be pointless to say that intelligence or God was the only reason things could be the way they are. If something had to exist and every option is just as likely and just as remarkable as all the others, this argument has no merit.

I'm not gonna touch the ridiculous argument they put up for intelligence having been the only reasonable cause for life and DNA, I'll leave that to Goat with his scientific answers. Will follow up with the moral argument later.

[Quath]

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.

[OnceConvinced]

I highly doubt most of these claims but that's irrelevant, the point remains the same, things are the way they are and if they were different life probably wouldn't exist. This is one of the more ridiculous arguments for a few reasons, one of them is that it proposes things could have been different which depending on their reasoning for doing so could be entirely circular. The major flaw is that it places an absurdly high prioirity on life. Why is it remarkable that this universe has these universal constraints? Even if it could have been different, these constraints had to exist to some degree, why is it remarkable that they exist to this degree? Because life can exist? Why is that more remarkable than life not existing? It's an unjustified assumption that this universe is special and the argument falls apart without that basis. If this universe is no more remarkable or special than any other then it would be pointless to say that intelligence or God was the only reason things could be the way they are. If something had to exist and every option is just as likely and just as remarkable as all the others, this argument has no merit..

Good points.

I used to be a Creationist myself and used to be one of those people that looked at the puddle and marvelled that the hole was just the right shape for it. Now I realise that I was looking at it all from the wrong perspective. What helped me was the realisation that the story of life the universe and everything isn't about us and how we got here. The story is about an environment that just happened to spawn life and that one lifeform in particular (us) grew to thrive in that environment.

I believe this is where Christians go wrong in their thinking. Life didn't get here DESPITE our environment. It got here BECAUSE of our environment. If one little part of our environment had been off kilter then no, we might not be here today, but instead there might be some other lifeform dominating instead. We are simply the natural outcome of our environment.