Atheism

[Gomez]

To call oneself a Christian in good faith is to profess belief in certain foundational propositions which comprise the backbone of the faith. You must, for example, believe in God, and in immortality. You must also hold certain beliefs about Christ. You must believe that he was the Son of God. You cannot believe he was a charlatan. You must believe he cheated death and bodily ascended into heaven. If you don't believe those things, I don't see in what meaningful sense you can call yourself a Christian.

[jja]

[Mackay]

[Samadhi]

I believe there might be odd perfect numbers, but I find it unlikely. If there's a proof forthcoming I'll believe it. If I have some personal insight but haven't been able to prove it, I'll strongly believe it but I won't go around saying it's the truth.

That's kind of how I feel about god, but god's got weaker standing.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between.

[Poisonium]

[Victoria Silverwolf]

[Victoria Silverwolf]

[Poisonium]

I thought that was a called a vegan? Or do you care about plants as well (who have about as much feelings as animals), so you only eat dirt?

[Mackay]

You know, that brings an interesting question to mind for me - I have no idea what Christian teachings are regarding animals and their feelings/lack thereof.

For my own part I think saying that animals are about on par with plants, feelings/emotions/passion?-wise, is mildly ridiculous. Unless you are saying that plants have more emotions/feelings/passion than they let on... no wait, I think that's a bit silly as well. Well, maybe - extropalopakettle is our star philosopher when it comes to consciousness while I am, unhappily, rather clueless.

I like "passionist" and think it would describe my attitude if this weren't merely for differentiating the denominations of Atheism, but I think that I might be considered rather hypocritical about it by the more strict adherents were I to call myself one. I adore animals, I even feel horribly guilty about killing spiders - but I sure do love eating those cows.

Victoria Silverwolf - I've never read The Case For Christ, but am disappointed if it is what you say it is. I'm going to request that you mention some of the things which you consider mediocre/generic-Christian-apologetic points in the book, and maybe your own counterpoints - but I will completely understand if you wish not to do this. I'm asking out of curiosity about the book and interest in your responses, and not a desire to start an argument/try to convince you (I promise!) but I certainly cannot speak for how anyone else will react, and this conversation has been nice and peaceful and rational for the most part.
I'd actually heard that it was excellent - but all from other Christians. Is it one of those books that's the sort of thing that a whole lot of Christians will agree with, based on a lot of Christian assumptions, that would make perfectly logical sense if you actually agreed with the premises they began with? Because that's always mildly disappointing for the non-Christian. And, for that matter, the Christian looking to appeal to the non-Christian.

[The Ragin' South Asian]

[Samadhi]

"The Case for Christ" sounds like something I want to read (seriously). VS (I can't find substantiating posts but I'm assuming from context that she's an atheist) seems to have a rather negative opinion of this book.

My curiosity is piqued because the book is so widely known and praised by (some) Christians and yet decried by atheists. I will read it with acceptance, then read it with criticism, then gauge.

I'll probably be disappointed but I can't resist.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between.

[Mackay]

Sam, I've got a book that sounds similar - I can't currently recall the title, but it's by a historian who went through the historical evidence/stories of Jesus and came out the other end a believer. I haven't read it in years, but I remember it being a really interesting read, though I've never gone over it with a critical eye (I was a brand new Christian at the time I got it). If you PM or email me your address I'd be happy to send it if you want =)

I don't know how it compares with "The Case For Christ", but I remember I liked it a lot.

EDIT: Found it, it's called "Evidence That Demands A Verdict", it's not as highly rated as "The Case For Christ" on Amazon, for whatever that's worth, and the guy wasn't a historian, just a skeptic (he set out to refute Christianity, apparently, and ended up believing in it). I'm reading it now. I skipped the introductions by editors/researchers and whatever because they seemed a bit cloying. The guy's introduction is a little saccharine himself - he's a bit misty-eyed over his conversion, I think - but the actual meat of it seems to have some promise, though I've just started.

[Victoria Silverwolf]

[Victoria Silverwolf]

As requested, a few more thoughts about The Case for Christ.

I didn't say it was bad. I said it was mediocre. By that I meant that it didn't stand out in any way for me. If I want to read Christian apologetics with pleasure, I turn to C. S. Lewis. I quite like the writing style of Lewis, as opposed to the rather ordinary style of Lee Strobel.

I won't go into a detailed discussion of the merits and flaws of The Case for Christ. For one thing, I am certainly not qualified to do so. For another, others have done a much better job than I could ever hope to do. Here's an example, with lots of excerpts to look through.

http://home.ca.inter.net/~oblio/CTVExcerptsIntro.htm

And, in the final analysis, I have absolutely no desire whatsoever to "convert" anybody to atheism, or indeed from whatever religion she may follow. As long as you are not a fanatic or a fundamentalist, as long as church and state stay completely and forever separate, as long as your religion does no harm to anyone and makes you a better and happier person, that's fine with me. Frankly, you're probably better off being a theist than an atheist. (My opinion has always been that one's religious beliefs are not a matter of "choice" anyway.)

With that, I'll mention a few things that made The Case for Christ less than memorable for me.

The author's personal story -- I was an unhappy, drunken, about-to-be-divorced atheist until I found Christ -- may be true, but it is was very familiar from other apologetic literature. It was, in fact, something of a cliche. In a similar way, the final conclusion of the book -- that the real evidence for Christ comes about when the Holy Spirit comes into one's heart, and one is granted the gift of faith -- may be very meaningful to Christians, but meant nothing to me.

I was also disappointed that the author, who claims to have been an atheist seeking for the truth, never even considers anything at all except Christianty. Where is The Case for Mohammed? Where is The Case for Wicca? If the author quickly came to the conclusion that these paths were not worthy of consideration, he never discusses this in any way.

Many of the details in the book were familiar even to someone like me, who is certainly not an expert in this field. The text attributed to Flavius Josephus, for example, has been discussed to a great extent.

All in all, there was very little that was new in The Case for Christ. (The same might be said for The God Delusion, although Dawkins is somewhat more witty and stylish a writer than Strobel.)
_________________
Reality is a crutch for people who can't face up to science fiction

[casinopete]

I have not read The Case for Christ, nor do I intend to do so. I have read part of Evidence that Demands a Verdict, and found it to be pretty poor reading.

I would suggest that an agnostic or atheist interested in Christianity would be better off reading quality Christian devotional literature rather than mediocre Christian apologetics. Pick up Foster's A Celebration of Discipline, or Bonhoeffer's The Cost of Discipleship, or, if you like Lewis, try Weight of Glory rather than Mere Christianity.

[Amb*]

[Samadhi]

CP: Good point. While I'm vicariously interested in the book, reading it really wouldn't serve a purpose. And probably those books try to bring fact into faith, which (unless you were there) aint happening. CS Lewis is one of my favorite authors, I'll put his (non-fiction) books next on my list.

BTW Was there another author that Lewis converted? Or was he converted by another author? I know one of the two is true, I just can't remember which. But I do know that the other is a well known fiction author.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between.

[BraveHat]

I recently became curious about the Secrets of the Universe (by recently, I mean the last 29 or so years of my life) and even though curiousity killed the cat, she has 8 more lives, so I risked it and checked out the myriad of testimonies from folks who have experienced being clinically dead and then revived.

http://www.near-death.com

I'm not sure if there is one account where any of the people (including atheists) did not confirm the existance of God after being revived. If someone finds one, I'd actually be curious to know.

In any case, my impression of the scheme indicated by these accounts is that souls are measured by their love more than they are measured by their beliefs or nonbeliefs. That what's important for a human is not so much to believe this or that, but on how much love they have given for what they *do* believe. So even though service to God is emphasized as the most important, if someone who never believed in God loved his fellows and had compassion and did good, they are in much better spiritual shape when they die then the person who believed in God and yet lived a selfish, unloving life. The former is closer to God's realm of love and light and his or her path toward serving God will be quicker then the latter. It seems that hypocracy causes worse spiritual damage than heresy, which makes sense to me.

[Coyote]

Well. Suppose I honestly felt that pain and loss were the best ways to experience the full reality of life. And suppose that, while I knew pain and loss really hurt, and I deeply regretted the need for it, I nevertheless inflicted it on people whenever I could out of a sense of love for those people, knowing that in the long run, it would turn out for the good.

Am I a good person for inflicting pain and loss?

Suppose I allow pain and loss to happen to people even if I'm in a position to prevent it, but never actively inflict it. Good person? Hypocrite?

[Gomez]

[BraveHat]

Some part of me feels that I was born to have these conversations, such is the joy I feel in participating in them. However, I also just had a king sized Snickers Bar, Reeses Fast Break, and Mountain Dew Amp, so it could be the immense sugar that I feel.