Why I am not a Christian

[atheist1]

I read the OP for the first time, and my conclusion is that this is a classic example of someone who just wants to do whatever he feels like doing, and is too afraid to make the sarafices & changes in his life that God wants of us. Some people are strong, but some people are weak and cannot resist their fallen desires. So, rather than try to be strong and do the difficult thing, they intellectualize their way out of it in order to ease their own conscience. The fact that the poster felt the need to post all of this stuff is proof that his conscience is bothering him: He seeks validation for his wayward beliefs, or else he seeks someone to show him that he’s wrong: One or the other. If he were truly comfortable with his new position he would never have bothered to come to this forum in the first plasce.

Some of us don’t need “god” to live a good life.

The OP may be trying to help rid you of your delusion.

 

[Catholicc]

I read the OP for the first time, and my conclusion is that this is a classic example of someone who just wants to do whatever he feels like doing, and is too afraid to make the sarafices & changes in his life that God wants of us. Some people are strong, but some people are weak and cannot resist their fallen desires. So, rather than try to be strong and do the difficult thing, they intellectualize their way out of it in order to ease their own conscience. The fact that the poster felt the need to post all of this stuff is proof that his conscience is bothering him: He seeks validation for his wayward beliefs, or else he seeks someone to show him that he’s wrong: One or the other. If he were truly comfortable with his new position he would never have bothered to come to this forum in the first plasce

This is no more than a personal attack, and is very rude.

It is not an attack and it is not rude. It is an observation based on similar situations I have seen before. Sometimes when the light of truth is shined on our disobedience to God, it can FEEL like an attack because we do not want to hear the Truth. But Jesus said that the “truth shall set you free”, and I am compelled to speak the truth.

Love in not validating someone’s error as they dance their way merrily to hell. Love is telling someone the things they need to hear, even if it hurts a bit.

 

[John7]

god isn’t real

The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God (Ps 14)

נבל

say to yourself ‘NaBeL’

 

[Catholicc]

…god isn’t real…

And you have proof of this?

 

[PeterJ]

It is not an attack and it is not rude. It is an observation based on similar situations I have seen before. Sometimes when the light of truth is shined on our disobedience to God, it can FEEL like an attack because we do not want to hear the Truth. But Jesus said that the “truth shall set you free”, and I am compelled to speak the truth.

Love in not validating someone’s error as they dance their way merrily to hell. Love is telling someone the things they need to hear, even if it hurts a bit.

But you assume, based on no (communicable) evidence that you are right, and then denouce me as immoral for not sharing your opinion.

You call me ‘weak’. You describe me as ‘someone who just wants to do whatever he feels like doing’. You state that i am a person ‘too afraid to make the sacrifices & changes in his life that God wants’. You dismiss my arguments as rationalisations and finally imply that I am going to go to hell!

What are all these accusations based on, have you considered that you might be wrong?

 

[atheist1]

And you have proof of this?

Absolute proof?..no I don’t. As you are probably aware, I can’t prove a negative and the burden on proof would be on the believer…not the non-believer.

The general lack of evidence for his existence should at least give one some doubt.

 

[atheist1]

The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God (Ps 14)

נבל

say to yourself ‘NaBeL’

I’ll see your Psalms and raise you a Matthew
…and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of fire…Matt 5:22

 

[SyroMalankara]

The atheist faith faces a number of crushing logical objections. I can no longer hold it in good conscience. I will outline these objections below:

1.) The atheist is not inerrant, neither factually nor morally:

1.1 Factually:

Atheists are all over the place, most don’t “believe in God” but accept junk-‘science’ and quasi-religious social movements.

When discussing Catholicism, they bring up all kinds of non-sequitors that have been refuted millenia ago as if it was original and from their own insights.

1.2 Morally:

Let’s face it, the atheistic societies are filled with immoralities. Majority Communist and fascist governments are genocidal and perpetuated senseless murderer, killed children with starvation and imprisonment, and commands the extermination of entire peoples. Yes some people will contend that atheism have nothing to do with it. But didn’t it?

Would the atheist today commit this genocide on the word of Stalin or Lenin, certainly leftist atheistic history teaches that he is a prophet of death.

2.) Atheism, without some corresponding evidence, is not only unjustified but is immoral.

It is wrong for everyone, everywhere to form a belief based on insufficient evidence. To me this is clearly the case.

To show that this I will use the example of the ship owner who fails to release a seaworthy vessel to rescue those drowning in the sea. In this example the owner of a certain vessel is required to test his ships for seaworthiness before he allows passengers to sail on them. Yet he does not do this, instead he forms a belief that the ship is not seaworthy by disregarding evidence and because he personally doesn’t like one of the mechanics who worked on the hull. Is this man not guilty of a most heinous crime? What if if those in the sea die because of his inaction?

1. Athestic moral teaching is ridiculous:

3.1 The atheist lacks clear teaching on nearly everything, historically acting without regard for the dignity of humanity - especially contraception is dangerous, absurd and logically unsupportable. Historically, atheistic governments force contraception/sterilization and abortions on people who have no free choice in the matter.

3.2 The atheist teaching on masturbation is equally logically unsupportable, equally ridiculous and makes people’s rational mind and body subservient to any and all desires. Again science to my knowledge has not produced a sound argument to its benefit, nor the harm in not masturbating.

3.3 The principle of godlessness in some instances seems an absurd way of working around ‘the dignity of the individual for the betterment of society while respecting the rights of humanity’.

Yet even without these objections (which I believe are crushing and decisive defeaters) atheistic moral teaching is too unclear, it will not make a firm stand on any circumstance, it simplifies where human nature is complex and will not listen to reality. In the end atheistic morality comes down to uncompromising relativism, reason/logic its’ facade.

For these reasons I have renounced atheism. Any comments?

 

[bbarrick8383]

Absolute proof?..no I don’t. As you are probably aware, I can’t prove a negative and the burden on proof would be on the believer…not the non-believer.

The general lack of evidence for his existence should at least give one some doubt.

The burden of proof is on your shoulders my friend. I know he exists, and I dont worry about it. By starting this thread you obviously have a burden on your shoulders. You tell yourself, you have taken the human concept of logic and applied it to the higher power that gave you the ability to rationalise and you have made your decision. But it still weighs on your shoulders. Because God is beyond logic and rationality, he created the concept of logic and rationality, and he gave it to you to make your way through life. But you have decided to use it against yourself, and dug yourself a hole that you keep digging with that logical shovel. God’s got a way out of that hole for you, the only thing keeping you in it is your self centered logic that you can not even use to totally convince yourself of. If you could, you would not be visiting this forum.

 

[Deum_quaerens]

Do you really need god to tell you child abuse is wrong?

In absolute terms, yes: without reference to God, one cannot say that child abuse (or any other action) is objectively evil. One can find it repugnant and sickening, but that in no way establishes the objective immorality thereof.

You believe that man is, fundamentally, an accidental accretion of atoms. Such a paradigm cannot somehow magically spawn an objective morality. If you do not recognize that, in your view, the morality of a child abuser is on an equal footing with yours, then you are not being honest to yourself and are quite simply refusing the logical implications of atheism.

 

[Deum_quaerens]

Absolute proof?..no I don’t. As you are probably aware, I can’t prove a negative and the burden on proof would be on the believer…not the non-believer.

The general lack of evidence for his existence should at least give one some doubt.

Have you ever actually listened to debates between theists and non-theists?

 

[Catholicc]

But you assume, based on no (communicable) evidence that you are right, and then denouce me as immoral for not sharing your opinion.

I never said you were immoral.

You call me ‘weak’.

I said “some people” are weak.

You describe me as ‘someone who just wants to do whatever he feels like doing’. You state that i am a person ‘too afraid to make the sacrifices & changes in his life that God wants’. You dismiss my arguments as rationalisations and finally imply that I am going to go to hell!

Yes, I do dismiss your arguments as rationalisations. Humans can often rationalize anything they wish of they are bent on doing it. And your arguments are erroneous, based on an obvious misunderstanding of Catholic teaching and morality.

What are all these accusations based on, have you considered that you might be wrong?

I suppose I could possibly be wrong as to the reason WHY you are not Christian, but your ultimate decision to reject Christianity IS wrong, and of that I have no doubt.

 

[Catholicc]

In absolute terms, yes: without reference to God, one cannot say that child abuse (or any other action) is objectively evil…

Correct. When man decides what is good or evil, we end up with things like the Holocaust.

 

[atheist1]

Have you ever actually listened to debates between theists and non-theists?

I’ve listened to quite a few including Dr. Craig’s.

 

[ishii]

Atheist1 wrote:

“If you look at our own country (assuming you live in the good old USA) we have quite a blemished record too. Slavery and the native American genocide to name but two shameful issues.”

That is a valid question, Atheist1. I would suggest that there is a difference between a country that is run by a government consisting of mostly Christians, (the good 'ol USA) and a country that is run by atheists. This country had an abolitionist movement and a civil rights movement - courtesy of Christians. In an atheist country, anyone practicing civil disobedience would be rounded up and executed. See the difference? Thanks for your question though.

Ishii

 

[Catholicc]

And you have proof of this?

Absolute proof?..no I don’t. As you are probably aware, I can’t prove a negative and the burden on proof would be on the believer…not the non-believer.

The general lack of evidence for his existence should at least give one some doubt.

The idea that there is no God is mathematically impossible. Basic probability tells you that the odds of a blob of primordial ooze morphing into a man, regardless of how much time has passed, are so remote that mathematicians regard it as impossible. Emile Borel and Fred Hoyle are just two mathematicians who reject evolution on statistical grounds. The idea is a “Statistcal Immposibility”. For example, it is theoretically possible that you could blow up a junk yard and all the flying pieces would land and form themselves into a Cadillac - that is possible. But the odds against it are so high that it constitutes a “Statistcal Immposibility”. Same goes for evolution out of nothing. That only leaves one possibility: God. There’s your proof, mathematically arrived at.

 

[atheist1]

In absolute terms, yes: without reference to God, one cannot say that child abuse (or any other action) is objectively evil. One can find it repugnant and sickening, but that in no way establishes the objective immorality thereof.

You believe that man is, fundamentally, an accidental accretion of atoms. Such a paradigm cannot somehow magically spawn an objective morality. If you do not recognize that, in your view, the morality of a child abuser is on an equal footing with yours, then you are not being honest to yourself and are quite simply refusing the logical implications of atheism.

It’s sad that you can’t reason that child sexual abuse is wrong without god telling you it is.

 

[Catholicc]

It’s sad that you can’t reason that child sexual abuse is wrong without god telling you it is.

Apparently you have never heard of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).

The Godlees descend into all manner of filth when left to their own designs

 

[atheist1]

Atheist1 wrote:

“If you look at our own country (assuming you live in the good old USA) we have quite a blemished record too. Slavery and the native American genocide to name but two shameful issues.”

That is a valid question, Atheist1. I would suggest that there is a difference between a country that is run by a government consisting of mostly Christians, (the good 'ol USA) and a country that is run by atheists. This country had an abolitionist movement and a civil rights movement - courtesy of Christians. In an atheist country, anyone practicing civil disobedience would be rounded up and executed. See the difference? Thanks for your question though.

Ishii

But we have christians who are guilty of enslaving a race of people and trying to wipe out another race of people. Believers are capable of commiting atrocities just as easily as atheists are…perhaps more so. I would say that as we in America move closer to becoming a secular society with less religious influence we will become more peaceful.

I haven’t read anyone explaining how “pick your favorite communist county” is founded upon atheism. I’m not sure what that means.

 

[atheist1]

Apparently you have never heard of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).

The Godlees descend into all manner of filth when left to their own designs

Wasn’t there a catholic priest who was very active in NAMBLA, with his bishops knowledge?

Regardless, I’m not sure what your post is supposed to show.