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.

[Serpent Oracle]

Biblical verses are not evidence of anything.

Interpretation is subjective and unprovable.

Next!

Hail Satan!

The One True God of Mankind....

[rosey]

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.

The point is that if they are truly referencing Jesus Christ, then they are prophetic, and prophesy is impossible except in cases of supernatural intervention. So this would prove that there is, in fact, a God, and He is Jesus Christ.

[Goat]

The point is that if they are truly referencing Jesus Christ, then they are prophetic, and prophesy is impossible except in cases of supernatural intervention. So this would prove that there is, in fact, a God, and He is Jesus Christ.

Not necessarily. You see, when it comes to prophecy, there are several methods of 'prophecy'.

1) Written TO a passage rather than having an event happen
2) Shoe horning into place
3) Vague references that can be interpreted just about anyway you want.
4) Out of context quotes , and mistranslations.

As far as I can see, all the 'prophecies' that are alleged to be 'full filled' by Jesus fit into those categories.

[Serpent Oracle]

The point is that if they are truly referencing Jesus Christ, then they are prophetic, and prophesy is impossible except in cases of supernatural intervention. So this would prove that there is, in fact, a God, and He is Jesus Christ.

Not necessarily. You see, when it comes to prophecy, there are several methods of 'prophecy'.

1) Written TO a passage rather than having an event happen
2) Shoe horning into place
3) Vague references that can be interpreted just about anyway you want.
4) Out of context quotes , and mistranslations.

As far as I can see, all the 'prophecies' that are alleged to be 'full filled' by Jesus fit into those categories.

Precisely.

As mentioned, biblical verses and their interpretations are not empirical evidence of anything...not least prophecy.
There is no evidence for the truth of Christianity there, only for the dysfunctional nature of the believer paradigm.

Also prophecy isn't real*.

One can make reasonable predictions sure...which are 'truthful' only in terms of probability, but prophecy doesn't exist.

*At least it is not scientifically provable yet, personally I am convinced some individuals may experience paranormal phenomena of the prophetic kind but those instances are almost always unconnected with religion and often associated with tragedies.
Certainly no recorded religious prediction has ever materialised.

[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.

The point is that if they are truly referencing Jesus Christ, then they are prophetic, and prophesy is impossible except in cases of supernatural intervention. So this would prove that there is, in fact, a God, and He is Jesus Christ.

That IF disqualifies your evidence as being anything other than wishful thinking.
Unsubstantiated and subjective.
Also if the story of Christ is largely fabricated (as it is, men do not walk on water or rise from the grave) then 'it' could be made to fit any predating 'prophecy' away.
So even if it did seem to predict Christ then I would put that down to human intervention and manipulation throughout the ages.
The Bible is the product of much editing, translating, copying and error.
The laws of entropy demand it....

Hence why I choose to take it with a very large pinch of sodium chloride.

[playhavock]

Reading one book to deside something is not a very good way to make a choice. Keep reading. Read books opposed to Christanity, read history, science, read - read - read. Study. The quest for truth and knowalge is an endless one, but desiding something after one book.... not a very good way to make a choice.

[PREEST]

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.

I have also read the book, to gain a better understanding of the christian position, and also to better understand my own. I can honestly say that such a piece of propaganda writing in the form of criticism of atheism in a book, (not that anyone should not be allowed to criticise atheism) only reaffirmed why I left the faith and became an atheist, and gave me confidence in why I value reason, rational thinking and scepticism, over faith.

But if you find happiness in your coming to faith then that is good for you. As long as your happiness doesn't have to be everyone else's happiness. God, simply did not make me happy, and the lack of good evidence for his very existence caused a lot of anxiety for me as a christian. I could not even be sure he was real, so loving him more than my family and friends was an impossible ask for me.

Several books I would suggest from an atheists point of few are;

God is Not Great: How religion poisons everything - Christopher Hitchens

The End of Faith: Religion, terror, and the future of reason - Sam Harris

These books speak more truth to me about religion than the bible ever could about christianity. But that's just me.

[Evointrinsic]

Rosey, from what posts I've read of yours I find it more and more difficult to both accept and understand how you were a ever an atheist to begin with.

This is not meant to be in any way offensive, but it just seems as though you don't know very much about atheism with some of the claims you are making regarding it. Not to mention some of the arguments against it and/or science in general (which really don't have a relation) are quite typical arguments from one who has been long conditioned to retort such accusations.

In all honesty, were you really a long standing atheist before your conversion to Christianity? And why?

[Bust Nak]

Rosey, from what posts I've read of yours I find it more and more difficult to both accept and understand how you were a ever an atheist to begin with.

This is not meant to be in any way offensive, but it just seems as though you don't know very much about atheism with some of the claims you are making regarding it. Not to mention some of the arguments against it and/or science in general (which really don't have a relation) are quite typical arguments from one who has been long conditioned to retort such accusations.

In all honesty, were you really a long standing atheist before your conversion to Christianity? And why?

Does it really matter how atheistic Rosey was? We can't expect all atheists to be atheists for the right reasons. I know you don't mean to be offensive but frankly many of the replies here sound too much like the "you were never knew Christ" accusation against ex-Christians for my liking.

[Boots]

Rosey, from what posts I've read of yours I find it more and more difficult to both accept and understand how you were a ever an atheist to begin with.

This is not meant to be in any way offensive, but it just seems as though you don't know very much about atheism with some of the claims you are making regarding it. Not to mention some of the arguments against it and/or science in general (which really don't have a relation) are quite typical arguments from one who has been long conditioned to retort such accusations.

In all honesty, were you really a long standing atheist before your conversion to Christianity? And why?

Does it really matter how atheistic Rosey was? We can't expect all atheists to be atheists for the right reasons. I know you don't mean to be offensive but frankly many of the replies here sound too much like the "you were never knew Christ" accusation against ex-Christians for my liking.

At the risk of speaking for someone (I don't mean to do that), I'd just like to say that E's question speaks to Rosey's self-honesty, and is important. I don't think it's necessarily important for Rosey to answer publically, but it's *critical* for her to answer to herself.

as an aside, understanding someone's position to the extent E is asking really helps to get to the root of questions/misunderstandings and such, IMHO.