Proof that Christianity is False

[anEvilAtheist]

Thank you for acknowledging, either God exists, or does not exist.

I am confused by the point, "there could be other gods … there are infinitely many possible other gods … ". You sound like you are stating, that it is possible for polytheistic beliefs, to replace monotheistic beliefs, which may not even be a moot point, but even within polythesitic systems of belief, such as Hinduism, there exists only one God, and such a God is infinite: it is a contradiction of terms, that a possible existence of many gods, can replace the existence of one God, that is infinite.

I wasn’t talking about polytheism. I was saying that each religion believes that they know certain properties of God (what he likes and what he doesn’t like). My point was that there are basically infinitely many possible beliefs about what God is like.

Agreed: there is some good and bad in most of us, however, in order that a person’s behavior should change according to the existence of God, in the monotheistic sense of the word “God”, behavior will change according to the admission, that one is sinful; to be sinful is to some extent, an admission of misery. Without this admission of misery, of sin, what need is there for a change in behavior?

I do not think that all monotheistic conceptions of God must necessarily share your same view of sin. I might say I’m a good person, but strive to be even better. However, I do not think that I must call myself a miserable sinner first.

Your last statement to myself, is difficult to understand: as a Catholic, I hold the belief, that God created me. I hold the belief, too, that through the sacrament of Baptism, I am separated against Original Sin: disobedience against God in terms of a story, that humankind’s first parents were disobedient and therefore, all their progeny–save Jesus, and his mother–have been condemned to a sinful nature. Additionally, the significance of this, is this: I exist as a soul–immortal, intelligent, and able to act according to my own freewill. As I am able to act of my own freewill, I am of course, as you say, unable to act according to the dictates of some extant supernatural being–God, or gods / godesses. Now, what additionally goes with myself, and yourself, existing as a soul is the following: ourselves as created immortal beings outside the condemnation of Original Sin, is the intrinsic inclination of a soul, toward God, or the willingness to do what is good–for ourselves, and for others as well, and this intrinsic inclination toward God, and goodness, is restored through Baptism, and other sacraments as well, according to freewill, consent to God’s love, graces, in our life. This is where your statement is false: the existence of something not only supernatural, but also against evil–does in fact, leave us with an intrinsic inclination to behave in a wise manner, as opposed to a foolish manner.

Regardless of what Psalm 14:1 says, I, as an atheist, do strive to behave in a wise manner. I don’t need a god in order to do this. The previous stuff you mentioned is for the Catholic god. If all we know is that something supernatural created the universe, we have no reason to believe in things like original sin or baptism.

Jesus made a comment about this, when he stated: no man hates his own body. This point is moot, arguable, nonetheless, on the whole, I think, that as you say, people are a mix of good and bad, and it may be said, in part, the good in us, is the will to be wise–if not for the sake of another, then for our own sake, but this may be furthered with forgiveness and hence, the need for a Messiah, Jesus.

I know that was somewhat of an awkward explanation, but I hope the main point did come across, not to be lost in the awkwardness. The main point being we, as immortal souls, apart from Original Sin, and sins by omission, or commission–we are intrinsically wired to behave wisely.

If Catholicism is true, that’s how we are. But my point about Pascal’s wager is that if we have no idea which god is correct, we should not live our lives as if Catholicism is correct unless we think there’s a high likelihood that it is.

 

[Kristopher]

… My point was that there are basically infinitely many possible beliefs about what God is like. … I do not think that all monotheistic conceptions of God must necessarily share your same view of sin. … I might say I’m a good person, but strive to be even better. … Regardless of what Psalm 14:1 says, I, as an atheist, do strive to behave in a wise manner. I don’t need a god in order to do this. The previous stuff you mentioned is for the Catholic god. If all we know is that something supernatural created the universe, we have no reason to believe in things like original sin or baptism. … my point about Pascal’s wager is that if we have no idea which god is correct, we should not live our lives as if Catholicism is correct unless we think there’s a high likelihood that it is.

Is your use of the word “infinitely” a contradiction in terms, as you are an atheist? What does the word “infinity” mean to you? What are some of your, personal, "infinitely many possible beliefs aobut what God is like. … ". To act and behave in a wise manner, can be done even in denial, that is true. You admit there is a Catholic God–if this is the case, then whom or what do you deny? Perhaps you only are stating a lack of your membership in a Catholic Church. If all we know is creation exists as a consequence of some supernatural will, then it must necessarilly follow, that there is an explanation for the corruption, of what has been created. The beliefs concerning Original Sin, may be Hindu in nature, according to some scholars, or more certainly, Jewish–perhaps you ascribe different gods to these religions; though, they are monotheistic. For what reason, as an atheist, do you strive to behave in a wise manner? What is wisdom? If you are to do what is right, rather than what is wrong–yet what is right and what is wrong is established by the whims of an anti-social dictator: where is the value in behavior that is wise?

Pascal made his wager, and converted to Catholicism–quite a fan of Saint Augustine.

Your behavior may not be in need of a god / goddessess, but your immortality as a soul to enter heaven; what does this require? Do you accept any of the works, attributed to Jesus?

 

[Aboveallbereal]

Well I am a Christian but it depends entirely on how you interpret several things. For instance, do you believe the Ark, the story of Adam & Eve, etc literally? Do you believe the earth is really only 6,000 years old?

Oh, and more thing, the burden of proof relies entirely on us as Christians. For instance, can you prove to me that Santa Clause is false? The answer is you can not, that doesn’t make it true (same for flying pigs or pink cows or whatever). Keep that in mind during your endeavors

Good luck

Incorrect. The “burden of proof” asyou put it only rests with us if we accept that the existence of and truth of Christ’s promises are subject to the rules of science. our Lord explicitly suggests they are not.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Incorrect. The “burden of proof” asyou put it only rests with us if we accept that the existence of and truth of Christ’s promises are subject to the rules of science. our Lord explicitly suggests they are not.

But by this logic, I could claim that undetectable unicorns exist. Clearly science cannot prove whether or not something undetectable exists, so you would have the burden of proving that they do not exist.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

It is merely a matter of reason that if God is truly omnipotent and omniscient and desires union with us, he would not be entirely invisible to us. One can immediately rule out most of the gods of history on that score as being quite incompetent gods when it comes to making themselves known to humans throughout the world.

See, if that’s the standard then I think we can rule out Christianity as well. I do not think that an omnibenevolent God who would punish us for not believing in him would leave so little evidence of his existence. Also, out of the set of all theoretically possible gods, I think it is far more likely that God would not desire union with us. I think to some extent it is our own egotism that makes us think that the universe revolves around us. God could have created us merely to have something cool to look at. He could have created us merely so a far smarter alien species would have someone to interact with. Our entire universe could be like an atom in some higher reality.

You can’t avoid the rational conclusion regarding your own behavior by looking for examples where others don’t do what you think they should do. This is between you and a possibly existing God. He won’t be impressed if you justify your own behavior by calling out “but what about all those others?!” It’s between you and God.

I was just using an example to show that your logic leads to an absurdity and you don’t even truly believe in your own logic (unless you actually spend every second researching other religions).

Nonsense, there are not an infinite number of gods, and certainly not an infinite number of gods who might actually be the one God of all. In fact, of course, there can only be one God who is the cause of all, and we merely have some different, distorted visions of him. Again, it makes no sense to do nothing because if you do something it might be the wrong thing. I know that down deep you can see this.

There are definitely infinite possible gods. Merely consider this: it is possible that God desires multiple universes. There are an infinite number of possible numbers of universes that God could desire. So there are an infinite number of possible gods. And there are also an infinite number of possible things that could exist. For each thing, God either prefers that it exists or prefers that it does not exist. There are thus an infinite number of sets of preferences and therefore an infinite number of possible gods. And while some gods may prefer us to do one thing, other gods may prefer us to do the opposite. So even if we knew there was a god (but nothing else), we would have no basis upon which to say what he would want.

It makes sense to do what I personally think will make my life meaningful and fulfilling unless I think I can do better by choosing some god and acting how I think he would want me to act. Since each belief about God is as likely to be wrong as right, doing this would be as likely to help me in the afterlife as hurt me. But I would meanwhile be sacrificing what I think is probably the only life I will ever have. I would be living my life in a way I would find less meaningful and fulfilling for no reason. So no, I still disagree with you deep down.

We’re not talking about some guy on the street, we’re talking about the possible existence of a God who by definition accounts for everything. I think there’s a hint of desperation in your argument when you have to fall back on such a weak rebuttal.

I wasn’t rebutting a specific point of yours with this example, merely showing another problem with your whole argument. What I think is interesting is that you say my rebuttal is weak, and yet you are still not able to explain what is wrong with it. If it is so weak, you should have been able to tear it apart. Just like the guy on the street, we do not learn about Catholicism directly from God, we hear it from other humans.

You can claim that there is too little evidence, and I can claim in return that I find the evidence overwhelming. I find evidence of God everywhere. So which of us is right?

Well, I obviously would argue that I am right.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

I believe, that people deduce from creation, God’s existence; additionally, I believe, that atheism is an acceptance of the freewill, to deny belief–I may seem to be begging the question–evidence(s) denied, that God exists; this is what substantiates an atheist’s ethical behavior. It should be without much surprise, those who are atheists behave ethically in accord, with the Ten Commandments, or another ethical structure, because as a Catholic I may assume, reasonably, an atheist is in the clutches of the Devil, and therefore, what need is there for Satan, to challenge the moral behaviors of an atheist? It is the moral behaviors of an atheist, which confound the morality of a Catholic. In the end, what are the moral behaviors of an atheist, except rocks, mistaken for diamonds?

Well, I have not yet seen a proof that morality cannot exist without God (though certainly if you define morality as rules from God, it tautologically does not exist without God). It may take some work to figure out, what if anything, morality is without God, but I think it might exist. However, I think that morality is even more problematic for a Christian. If morality comes from God, it seems to be arbitrary and there is little moral accountability. You can confess to great evils and still be able to go to heaven. And if morality is merely dictated by the whim of God, then it is arbitrary. God could decide tomorrow to make incest moral again (since Christians think it apparently once was). So morality would be arbitrary under divine command theory. However, if God cannot change morality, then that means that there is some set of moral principles that either God’s nature is in accordance with, or that God acts as a messenger for. But in this case, morality could exist even if there is no God.

 

[Shredderbeam]

You would not make any of these objections if you actually believed that the possibility of perfect eternal happiness or perfect eternal unhappiness were at stake. My conclusion can only be that either you don’t believe in that possibility (in which case you are an atheist, which is no more defensible a position on evidence than you think theism is), or that you have other reasons for not wanting to try, however you might, to conform yourself to God.

I don’t believe that eternal happiness/misery is at stake, though I acknowledge that it’s possible.

Yes, I am an atheist - that is, I don’t believe in a God. I believe in things on the basis of evidence, and I don’t think that there is evidence to support the existence of a God.

VociMike:

The journey leads to perfect union with God, who is Truth and Life and Goodness and Beauty. The journey leads to becoming fully human, fully alive, free of the shackles of untruth, of attachment to sin (say “evil” if you prefer), of attachment to that which has no true and everlasting value.

How does one achieve this by acting as though one believed in a God?

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Is your use of the word “infinitely” a contradiction in terms, as you are an atheist? What does the word “infinity” mean to you? What are some of your, personal, "infinitely many possible beliefs aobut what God is like. … ".

Well since I believe each possible God would have an infinitely big set of preferences, I cannot fully describe such a God. However, pretty much any moral teaching is possible. Maybe mind altering substances are immoral, and maybe they aren’t. Maybe sex outside of marriage is always immoral, and maybe there are exceptions. There are so many different possibilities for what God could want.

To act and behave in a wise manner, can be done even in denial, that is true. You admit there is a Catholic God–if this is the case, then whom or what do you deny? Perhaps you only are stating a lack of your membership in a Catholic Church.

I admit that the Catholic God exists as a concept and I sometimes refer to him in arguments as if he existed in order to show how I think things would be like if he hypothetically did exist. However, I definitely do not believe the Catholic God exists. I would even go further and say that I know that he does not exist. I recognize that we can never know anything with 100% confidence, however for things such as the existence of God or the flying abilities of pigs, I am confident enough that I think it’s justified to use the term ‘know’. However, this could change if I ever saw a flying pig or good evidence for the Catholic God.

If all we know is creation exists as a consequence of some supernatural will, then it must necessarilly follow, that there is an explanation for the corruption, of what has been created. The beliefs concerning Original Sin, may be Hindu in nature, according to some scholars, or more certainly, Jewish–perhaps you ascribe different gods to these religions; though, they are monotheistic. For what reason, as an atheist, do you to behave in a wise manner? What is wisdom? If you are to do what is right, rather than what is wrong–yet what is right and what is wrong is established by the whims of an anti-social dictator: where is the value in behavior that is wise?

There are certain things like happiness and a sense of fulfillment that I see as desirable. I use whatever wisdom (which I define similarly to intelligence) I have to try to figure out the best way of bringing these things about. So wisdom is valuable because it helps me get better outcomes. I discussed morality in another recent post, so feel free to comment on that or ask again if you don’t think it answers your question adequately.

Pascal made his wager, and converted to Catholicism–quite a fan of Saint Augustine.

Your behavior may not be in need of a god / goddessess, but your immortality as a soul to enter heaven; what does this require? Do you accept any of the works, attributed to Jesus?

I don’t believe in heaven. I don’t know what you mean by works. I accept that Jesus probably existed and did things, but I do not think that he did anything miraculous or supernatural.

 

[anon5216]

God, typically, is defined as infinite: an infinite God leaves room for no other God. What makes the existence of other gods, possible, or even limitless? An infinite God must be recognized as the origin of all, that exists. Those with freewill have souls: angels, demons, gods, and people. However, the freewill of such beings is limited by the immortality of the soul. A being with a soul may choose a belief in God, or a denial in God, and God may mercifully allow entrance of a soul into heaven, or condemn such souls to Hell. Just the same, the freewill of a soul, cannot choose to be mortal. It must be immortal. A soul upon entering heaven will continue to have the freewill to choose Hell.

It is not the fact there is a personal God, which necessitates a change in behavior, but an understanding, that we are the miserable creatures, that we are and therefore, in need of salvation, and adherence to the will of God, then becomes important, because it is greater than our own will, that has the concupiscense, or inclination to sin.

Limitless possibilities? According to whom, or what? Yes means only yes. No means only no. There are no infinite possibilities, even the word “maybe” is limited to either yes, or no. Is there a God: yes or no? Upon what is the answer “yes” based? On what is the answer “no” based. Is it wise to rebel against God; when the answer: “God exists.”, is provided. Satan knowingly rebelled against God, and it is put forward, that Satan’s powers are granted to Satan by God, and they will one day, end. Will this terminate Satan’s existence as a god to that of a soul, condemned to Hell, without any ability whatsoever to deceive souls into Hell. I recently heard, that Satan will provide us with diamonds, that we may in turn, pick-up rocks.

I’m sorry, but you really don’t seem to understand infinity at all.

Do you understand that a line is an infinite set of points,
and that a plane can have an infinite set of lines that never intersect,
and that 3 dimensions contain an infinite set of planes that never intersect,
etc, etc.?

You’re just repeating things you’ve been taught or have read. These are beliefs or assertions, not Truth.

As to rebelling against God: you would have to know God before you could possibly rebel against Him.
Reading stories & myths and/or listening to stories & myths does not “knowing God” make.

What people rebel against is not God, but rather various human stories & myths that have been made up about God.

 

[Mike_Dye]

It sounds like you really want to believe. While I think Christianity is wrong and the evidence points strongly against it, we all have to follow our own minds and hearts. The good news for you is that I have no definitive proof that every form of Christianity is wrong. It is impossible to disprove Christianity, just as it is impossible to disprove invisible unicorns. However, I do think that all forms of Christianity have contradictions, or force you to accept something that I think is absurd. In my opinion, the biggest problems for Christianity are the problem of evil and the doctrine of hell. It is possible to come up with a consistent set of beliefs, but every set of beliefs I have heard so far (even from top apologists) includes something I see as an absurdity (for example, that the Holocaust made the world better off, and there was no way for God to do the same amount of good with less harm). So I don’t think there’s one argument that disproves all of Christianity, but I do not think there is a reasonable way of reconciling all of the apparent contradictions. If you give me a set of beliefs about hell and evil, I can tell you why I think it is implausible.

I believe that everyone should take the time to consider whether or not their beliefs are contradictory. My personal opinion is that most intelligent people who approach the God question without bias and really dig deeply into the evidence on both sides will probably become atheists because that is where I feel the evidence leads. I know of many people who desperately wanted to believe and yet very reluctantly gave up their beliefs as they learned more and more.

I don’t know much about you, so I don’t know whether or not you’d be better off as an atheist. I know that many of the people who were dragged kicking and screaming away from Christianity (due to researching the evidence) ended up very content in their atheism and eventually felt it very liberating (after they got over an initial feeling of loss). But there are also people who rely so much on their faith that losing it would cause them profound sadness.

If you really want to preserve your faith in Christianity, I recommend that you listen to some debates by William Lane Craig (there’s tons of them online). Personally, I think he is dead wrong, and sometimes plays a little fast and loose with the facts, but I think his case for Christianity is better than any other I have heard. He also typically destroys the atheists that he is debating against because he has a lifetime of practice defending Christianity. If you want to remain a Christian, I also recommend checking out the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. It’s a recently released compilation of the best arguments for the existence of God with chapters written by the greatest living proponents of each argument. I have not read it yet, but I hear it makes probably the best possible case for Christianity. It’s really expensive, but maybe you can borrow it from the library at some point.

If you want to challenge your faith, I also might be able to point you toward some good resources. In the end, I think it comes down to how much you want to make sure that your beliefs are true. If you want to be pretty sure that your beliefs are true, you have a lot of work ahead of you, because there’s a lot that you should read (from both atheists and Christians) before making up your mind. But if you feel that you currently have enough evidence/faith to continue believing in Christianity, go ahead. I think Christianity is wrong, but I don’t think any of us can really know what is true with 100% certainty. Good luck, and if you have any questions about anything, I’d be happy to try to answer them.

I am really tired right now but feel I need to respond. The Holocaust was in no way from God. It was a result of mans fallen nature. In regard to hell. I believe it exists because Jesus says it does, however I have always believed there are no gates on hell. People are there because that is what they chose.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

I am really tired right now but feel I need to respond. The Holocaust was in no way from God. It was a result of mans fallen nature. In regard to hell. I believe it exists because Jesus says it does, however I have always believed there are no gates on hell. People are there because that is what they chose.

I wasn’t saying that the Holocaust must have been from God. I was merely saying that whenever I have heard a complete explanation from someone for the problem of evil and hell, it always requires you to assume something that I find incredibly hard to believe. Maybe you can reconcile everything though. In any case, I think it’s a topic for another thread.

 

[Kristopher]

… proof that morality cannot exist without God … It may take some work to figure out, what if anything, morality is without God, but I think it might exist. … I think that morality is even more problematic for a Christian. If morality comes from God, it seems to be arbitrary and there is little moral accountability. You can confess to great evils and still be able to go to heaven. … God could decide tomorrow to make incest moral again (since Christians think it apparently once was). … if God cannot change morality, then that means that there is some set of moral principles that either God’s nature is in accordance with, or that God acts as a messenger for. …

You sound, like you are saying, morality can exist without God’s existence, or put another way from my view, or your denial in a belief in God, morality can, and even does, if your claim of adherence to some elements of the Ten Commandments is accepted as true. There is no need from what I see of your viewpoint, to prove the existence of morality, morality’s existence is a given.

You observe: “You can confess to great evils and still be able to go to heaven.”. You are correct with the assumption, God has forgiven whomever has confessed great evils. However, confession must necessitate penance: satisfaction. The sin(s) confessed have been evil and therefore, what destruction has been caused to goodness–love, morality, faith–must be restored. This may be done in a number of ways, prayer, and time spent with Jesus, with God, in the presence of the blessed sacrament–Jesus, etc., and other directions adhered to as well, an obedience to God, God’s laws, and to God’s ministers: those whom have received, or been given, Holy Orders. I hope, that I am explaining this clearly: you might make an effort to seek counsel about these matters from a priest, in your area, or seek answers from an apologist, or others on this site, through Catholic Answers.

Your statement about incest, might be relevant to Catholics today, that find nothing immoral concerning contraception, or abortion, or sexual intercourse outside of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony; however, these matters in so-far as what the Catholic Church teaches, (It may, and is, argued.), have remained if not in letter, then in spirit, unchanged by the views of Catholics, either as part of a majority, or a minority. The challenge to a Catholic, being moral, is not necessarily the morality we as Catholics accept from the Roman Rite, but in the lack of support, we find amongst ourselves as Catholics because we refute: what the Catholic Church teaches, or explains to us, through the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

It is the healing, that God provided many of us, through the Sacraments, and the hope of Salvation through our Lord, Jesus Christ, that many of us, as Catholics find ourselves feeling, and being, loved, which makes us think at times, and feel at times, that the world revolves around us–it is an awesome, and humbling, experience to be loved by God; when little on our part, has merited such love, such healing.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

You sound, like you are saying, morality can exist without God’s existence, or put another way from my view, or your denial in a belief in God, morality can, and even does, if your claim of adherence to some elements of the Ten Commandments is accepted as true. There is no need from what I see of your viewpoint, to prove the existence of morality, morality’s existence is a given.

Well clearly subjective morality exists. I think it is wrong for you to kill me and would really prefer that you didn’t. I do not take the existence of objective morality as a given, and I do not claim to know that there is objective morality without God. I am investigating a number of different ethical theories (though at a pretty slow pace). There are a lot of them that are badly flawed, but some of them seem like they could be true. I have not researched it enough to make a definitive statement and am currently not certain that there is objective morality without God.

You observe: “You can confess to great evils and still be able to go to heaven.”. You are correct with the assumption, God has forgiven whomever has confessed great evils. However, confession must necessitate penance: satisfaction. The sin(s) confessed have been evil and therefore, what destruction has been caused to goodness–love, morality, faith–must be restored. This may be done in a number of ways, prayer, and time spent with Jesus, with God, in the presence of the blessed sacrament–Jesus, etc., and other directions adhered to as well, an obedience to God, God’s laws, and to God’s ministers: those whom have received, or been given, Holy Orders. I hope, that I am explaining this clearly: you might make an effort to seek counsel about these matters from a priest, in your area, or seek answers from an apologist, or others on this site, through Catholic Answers.

None of the things you described seem like they would be bad things (i.e. not punishment). I assume that you do not think spending time with Jesus or God would be bad.

Your statement about incest, might be relevant to Catholics today, that find nothing immoral concerning contraception, or abortion, or sexual intercourse outside of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony; however, these matters in so-far as what the Catholic Church teaches, (It may, and is, argued.), have remained if not in letter, then in spirit, unchanged by the views of Catholics, either as part of a majority, or a minority. The challenge to a Catholic, being moral, is not necessarily the morality we as Catholics accept from the Roman Rite, but in the lack of support, we find amongst ourselves as Catholics because we refute: what the Catholic Church teaches, or explains to us, through the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

It is the healing, that God provided many of us, through the Sacraments, and the hope of Salvation through our Lord, Jesus Christ, that many of us, as Catholics find ourselves feeling, and being, loved, which makes us think at times, and feel at times, that the world revolves around us–it is an awesome, and humbling, experience to be loved by God; when little on our part, has merited such love, such healing.

Also, I don’t think you really addressed what I said about the arbitrariness of morality under divine command theory. I don’t think most people would be willing to accept that an omnibenevolent God could make incest and murder moral tomorrow.

 

[Detales]

Tonsofquestions, congratulations. You are doing what not to may folks do: making a step towards discovering how, and why, and by what means you aquired your religion. Although you seem to be going about it in a limited true/false, proof/no proof way, at least you’ve made a first step.

It really doesn’t matter if you end up with your faith fortified or not, as you will mature in the process of inquiry, given that you don’t go bonkers trying to analyze all the diverse answers you are getting!

If I may suggest, there is more data about the nature of how and why we aquire our particualar religion and its validity (different than its truth) than is even touched on in this thread. A friend of mine teaches a class in comparative religion and has given me a great tool in this regard. He was going to be a Jesuit and was well along the way, so I trust him as far as being sensitive to the sensibilities of Catholics.

At any rate, what he is using in his classes is a book that treats of some very fundamental things pertinent to how we get our data about religion, how we think about that data and why, and some sections on the nature of translation, meaning, collections (Bibles,) communication, witnessing, etc, etc. The book is a delight to read, and not partial to nor condmnatory of any religion, and is very well documented in a scholarly way. It is strewn with wonderful quotes and anecdotes, and the bibliography is a treasury of literary networking on the subject.

Unfortunately, the book has a title that makes many Christians recoil in horror. That is too bad as it is perhaps the most useful book I or many of my friends have ever found on the topic. So, hold on to your hat. It is called* Insights for the Age of Aquarius: a handbook for religious sanity.* Though I have heard it said that religious sanity is an oxymoron, tis book is excellent in that field. The author is Gina Cerminara, a name the will draw some criticism from may old guard folks, but this one is not in her usual vein. Once you read the laudatory notes from several notables in the field, I think you possible fears might be allayed. In any case, I do not think I have read anything more useful that I could recommend as a tool in your search if not for an answer in this matter. then some darn good tools for working with it.

As for my own opinion, I remember the story of the elephant and the blind men. You know, the one where several blind men had a big argument as to the discription of an elephant because each had come to grasp a different portion of it. I just want to say that perhaps your question and the question of God and religon is a similar matter in some respects. Remember, we are trained from birth to think of God in a particular way. Don’t discount the force of habit. The “christianist” view of God as a being separate from Creation is only one view, and may not be as complete as is popularly thought. But we are in that culture, so it is difficult to think otherwise. We get into arguments, some of us, whether that particular understanding of God as God exists or not, and that breaks down into arguments about evaluations of the seveal competing Abrahamic faiths and their splinter groups.

I belive that all the elements of a right understanding are present in Christianity, but they are viewed from a skewed angle that makes for a simple but tragic misinterpretation. I didn’t make this up. I had a rather remarkable experience that made me look at my very strong, well catechised, and proselytizing Catholic faith from a rather radical perspective, and not by choice. I found, that for me at least, Catholicism failed in one critcial area. Maybe for you Catholicism does or will work, but I’m just saying that it bears fruit to have a good set of tools and a wide range of materials when one is building their ship of soul. Just one “store” may not have all the best or even the most vital supplies.

No matter what you do at this point, you have tossed your bread on the water, so to speak. I truly wish you the Best. Considering the Star you steer by, perhaps you might find that you can see out from the Star as well as up to it.

I could list a bookshelf full of material other than what I recommended, one author in particualr who rather well addresses you plight, but if you read the one named above, you will set foot on a path you may find difficult, perhaps, but exceptionally rewarding.

Bindar Doondat

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Tonsofquestions, congratulations. You are doing what not to may folks do: making a step towards discovering how, and why, and by what means you aquired your religion. Although you seem to be going about it in a limited true/false, proof/no proof way, at least you’ve made a first step.

I agree; it makes sense to also take a look at other religions if you haven’t already.

Unfortunately, the book has a title that makes many Christians recoil in horror. That is too bad as it is perhaps the most useful book I or many of my friends have ever found on the topic. So, hold on to your hat. It is called* Insights for the Age of Aquarius: a handbook for religious sanity.* Though I have heard it said that religious sanity is an oxymoron, tis book is excellent in that field. The author is Gina Cerminara, a name the will draw some criticism from may old guard folks, but this one is not in her usual vein. Once you read the laudatory notes from several notables in the field, I think you possible fears might be allayed. In any case, I do not think I have read anything more useful that I could recommend as a tool in your search if not for an answer in this matter. then some darn good tools for working with it.

I guess there are some young atheists in the old guard, because I also would question Gina Cerminara’s credibility (though I’m sure your heart is in the right place in recommending her Detales). I just don’t see someone who believes in telepathy, telekinesis, and precognition as a reliable source. There has not been good evidence that any of that stuff is true, and study after study that supposedly provided evidence for those things has been shown to be flawed. James Randi has a standing offer of $1,000,000 to anyone who can demonstrate a paranormal ability and everyone who has attempted it so far has failed.

 

[wasmit]

But I have just as much of an obligation to offer evidence for my accounting for the universe and our position in it. Let me repeat the situation. Each of us must attempt to account for the existence of the universe and for the human situation. To not make that attempt is to be less than human. So it is not enough to deny the existence of the Christian God or the Hindu god or any other god. We must offer a compelling case for whatever it is that we believe does account for the universe and the human situation. We cannot, if we are to be truly human, simply ignore those two facts.

so, a person that says:

“I’m not really interested in all that god/universe stuff, or philisophical **** about existence or non-existence or the human condition or whatever. What a bunch of mumbo-jumbo and a waste of time! I just don’t think about it and get on with my life.”

Is less than human?

 

[Detales]

Thanks, Evilatheist, but the 2nd paragraph you quoted included this phrase: “…but this one is not in her usual vein.” I said that because it is so. Thiough she mentions them in passing, you are not performing a service in this instance by attempting to distribute the author’s beliefs in another field over the utiliity of this particular work. Read it, or at lest the prefaratory material and the table of contents, and see if you are able to make the same comment. This is exactly why I presented the book in a cautious manner, and even that unnecessariy backfired. I have read some of the authors other works, so I’m confident my opinion is based on experience rather than conjecture. Your criticism smacks of “ad hominem,” or as someone else on one of these threads delightfully misstated it, " ad homonym."

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Thanks, Evilatheist, but the 2nd paragraph you quoted included this phrase: “…but this one is not in her usual vein.” I said that because it is so. Thiough she mentions them in passing, you are not performing a service in this instance by attempting to distribute the author’s beliefs in another field over the utiliity of this particular work. Read it, or at lest the prefaratory material and the table of contents, and see if you are able to make the same comment. This is exactly why I presented the book in a cautious manner, and even that unnecessariy backfired. I have read some of the authors other works, so I’m confident my opinion is based on experience rather than conjecture. Your criticism smacks of “ad hominem,” or as someone else on one of these threads delightfully misstated it, " ad homonym."

I understand, and I didn’t mean to say that this book of hers must necessarily be inaccurate. I don’t know. I just thought that it was worth pointing that stuff out, especially since she does talk somewhat about that stuff in the book.

 

[santodomingo]

It sounds like you really want to believe. While I think Christianity is wrong and the evidence points strongly against it, we all have to follow our own minds and hearts. The good news for you is that I have no definitive proof that every form of Christianity is wrong. It is impossible to disprove Christianity, just as it is impossible to disprove invisible unicorns. However, I do think that all forms of Christianity have contradictions, or force you to accept something that I think is absurd. In my opinion, the biggest problems for Christianity are the problem of evil and the doctrine of hell. It is possible to come up with a consistent set of beliefs, but every set of beliefs I have heard so far (even from top apologists) includes something I see as an absurdity (for example, that the Holocaust made the world better off, and there was no way for God to do the same amount of good with less harm). So I don’t think there’s one argument that disproves all of Christianity, but I do not think there is a reasonable way of reconciling all of the apparent contradictions. If you give me a set of beliefs about hell and evil, I can tell you why I think it is implausible.

I believe that everyone should take the time to consider whether or not their beliefs are contradictory. My personal opinion is that most intelligent people who approach the God question without bias and really dig deeply into the evidence on both sides will probably become atheists because that is where I feel the evidence leads. I know of many people who desperately wanted to believe and yet very reluctantly gave up their beliefs as they learned more and more.

I don’t know much about you, so I don’t know whether or not you’d be better off as an atheist. I know that many of the people who were dragged kicking and screaming away from Christianity (due to researching the evidence) ended up very content in their atheism and eventually felt it very liberating (after they got over an initial feeling of loss). But there are also people who rely so much on their faith that losing it would cause them profound sadness.

If you really want to preserve your faith in Christianity, I recommend that you listen to some debates by William Lane Craig (there’s tons of them online). Personally, I think he is dead wrong, and sometimes plays a little fast and loose with the facts, but I think his case for Christianity is better than any other I have heard. He also typically destroys the atheists that he is debating against because he has a lifetime of practice defending Christianity. If you want to remain a Christian, I also recommend checking out the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. It’s a recently released compilation of the best arguments for the existence of God with chapters written by the greatest living proponents of each argument. I have not read it yet, but I hear it makes probably the best possible case for Christianity. It’s really expensive, but maybe you can borrow it from the library at some point.

If you want to challenge your faith, I also might be able to point you toward some good resources. In the end, I think it comes down to how much you want to make sure that your beliefs are true. If you want to be pretty sure that your beliefs are true, you have a lot of work ahead of you, because there’s a lot that you should read (from both atheists and Christians) before making up your mind. But if you feel that you currently have enough evidence/faith to continue believing in Christianity, go ahead. I think Christianity is wrong, but I don’t think any of us can really know what is true with 100% certainty. Good luck, and if you have any questions about anything, I’d be happy to try to answer them.

This is an interesting post, but the reasoning is fundamentally flawed. The implicit premise is “there is no such thing as Truth that we mortals can discover”. This premise then logically leads to the conclusion that religion is merely a matter of “taste”, which is why the poster recommends atheism or christianity according to one´s psychology. Taste is OK for art, fashion, cooking, and interior decorating, but has NOTHING to do with religion!!!

Jesús says “the truth will set you free”. He doesn´t say “a belief system that suits your personal psychology and your life-style will set you free”. Allow me to remind you that you need to submit your mind to the truth, rather than the other way round, as is being suggested.

I pray you will find the Truth. Remember that two attitudes are necessary for this quest: sincerity and humility. From your original post it seems that you have both, so keep going!

 

[Detales]

Oh, you have read it then? What is your opinion of the all the chapters that don’t mention any of these ideas, and the general thesis of the book?