Dear I Declare:

I'm flattered that you should bend your rules for me. God is love, which is a logical conclusion based on the idea that if good and evil exist together, then freedom is the reason that evil exists, not because God is evil. Or doesn't exist. If God was either one (evil or nonexistent), we'd never be having this conversation. Of course this is all my own thinking. I don't say that anything I say is true. But if evil existed in a vacuum without love ... the human race, which evil wants to destroy, would not have ever had a chance. Which sets up a showdown, between good and evil, where good wins, which is precisely what the Bible predicts. If there are errors in the Bible ... Christian heretics put them there. And if Jesus is not a threat ... why would they bother?

Bless you, I declare. I have been where you are. My intense desire to know and understand reality (after being terrified by hallucinations and finding peace when I resolved God didn't like these things any more than I did, because his creation did not reflect hatred toward mankind, nature, etc.) has led me to find truth only by assuming this scenario and then that one. God is provable by who he is, but mostly because of who he obviously isn't. The cosmic drama, conflict will have a conclusion ... and I expect it to be geologically spectacular, for one. Based on Zechariah 14, when valleys become mountains and vice versa. Evil destroys, God uses that energy against itself to create.

I'm not going to go into your discussion of God, good, and evil in huge detail because it doesn't sound to me like you're looking for a debate (let me know if I'm reading you wrong on this). I would like to start out, though, by saying that you don't need to couch your words with "I don't say that anything I say is true." If you have a reasoned opinion, I think you should come right out and say, "this is what I believe." We all understand that nobody's opinion is necessarily true, that's why it's worth having these discussions. I guess what I mean is you shouldn't sound like you're not proud of your beliefs or if you think they are less than anyone else's. All reasonable people are equal in this sense.

A brief refutation of your argument -- from my standpoint, it appears to rely on "good" and "evil" being metaphysical forces in and of themselves that require balancing. I don't believe that there is good or evil without human thought, and I don't think there is any metaphysical requirement for balance of good and evil. So, because I disagree with your premises, I disagree with your argument.

Thanks for writing!

Hey again, long time no talk! Anyway, my brother and I have recently taken a big part in some different threads on a forum, discussing everything from Biblical concepts of what Christianity should be, to hard-core debates on ID vs naturalism. If you ever have the time, check out the link here to our first thread: [URL]

I know it is on a gaming forum, but it spread rather quickly. There are actually probably 7 different "religion" threads now because of my brothers thread there. Please take a look some time if you are interested in some pretty deep stuff. Thanks. Take care.

I only had a chance to read a bit of what you pointed me at, but it's very nice to see some polite, informed discussion out there. Keep it up!

Can't dispute one point you've made. I "think" the reason I always throw the "but you can decide for yourself later" at them is so if they ever take a spouse that's a christian it helps them to know that I know, love, and tolerate people that believe...as if we have a choice ;) I don't want them to think I want them hating all religious people. I just don't want religion to become a dividing issue for our family later in life. With that said, if you asked either of my kids if there is a god you would get two resounding no's. I've never made any bones about my opinion in front of the kids when the subject comes up, so they know exactly where their dad stands on the subject ;) They never get the christian or creationism or any other point of view in our home...it's pretty simple, I just don't believe it so I certainly can't teach it. They get evolution, period. That's an interesting point you make about implying there may be something to the arguments for religion by simply stating that they can decide for themselves later. I'll have to keep that thought in mind next time we talk about it. From your description, I think we're probably not too far apart in what we tell our kids. Keep up the good work with the website, the humor is great and you have a thick skin to put up with all those vicious threats.

I agree -- it sounds like our parenting methods are pretty similar. I have heard from people who really do try and "balance" everything they teach their children philosophically, to the point that they are essentially hiding their own beliefs from their children, and frankly that drives me nuts <G>. Glad to hear this isn't the case in your home!

Hi whatever-your-name-is!

Whenever we ask an important question, there are several desirable properties an answer can have:

1) It is available within a resonable amount of time

2) Most people can understand it easily

3) It fits well into our preexisting framework of answers to other questions

4) It agrees with reality, i.e is true

Ideally all of these are fulfilled, but it of course often happens that it is not possible to find an answer that meets all criteria. Then a tough choice has to be made about the priority of the properties above. As I see it, science focuses entirely on 4) and leaves the rest as second-hand concerns whereas religion goes for 1, 2 and 3 (e.g. "God did it!") and then simply assumes 4 to follow.

And a side note about the problems some people have with "Thou shalt not kill" issued from the same God that orders killings right & left: I think it's meant as an abbreviation of "Thou shalt not kill another jew".

That's an interesting point! I'd say that science demands 4, hopes for 3, and would like 2 and (more importantly) 1 but can do without them.

How religious people fit into the equation is going to vary by individual. Some religious people who have thought about the question in detail feel that they are forming their beliefs in the same way a scientist would. Others can't comprehend a universe without God, in which case they are starting with #4. I think that if we are talking about the development of world religions over time, though, you may have pretty much hit it on the head.

Regarding "Thou shalt not kill" -- I believe the original translates better as "Thou shalt not murder." This probably fits better than "Thou shalt not kill another Jew" since the laws included rules for when Jews should be put to death.

I have just become an atheist.

I eventually realized all the gaps in Christianity, and faith in general. I feel very free now as a result of not living in fear of being punished for "thought crimes" such as not buying into things which have no logical proof. A theologist professor said "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Oh yeah? Where's your evidence?

That my friend, is called full circle logic. A=B because I said so. aka, the bible is right because it says its right.

So, my question, how do I go about telling my devoutly christian parents, friends, and church about my new worldview?

Although I appreciate what you are saying, your theology professor was actually correct that, in a logical sense, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Or, in a nutshell, you (in general) can't prove a negative.

For example, right now we don't have proof that any of the variant string theories of physics is true, but that doesn't mean that none of them are true (although that might be the case). Or, more ridiculously, if you have no evidence that your great, great, great, great maternal grandfather existed, that doesn't imply that he didn't exist.

Where theologists get in trouble is when they treat absence of evidence as evidence of existence. For example, a theist must argue that we don't know what was there before the Big Bang, therefore God was there. That's a spurious argument.

Theologists also are on shaky ground if they are using the "absence of evidence" line to argue that you can't prove God doesn't exist, therefore God might exist. While this is true in a logical sense, it doesn't say anything about the likelihood that God exists. I won't say it's impossible that there is a Christian-type God out there, but I consider the likelihood to be incredibly small.

I'm glad you started out with a subject I'm comfortable with so that I had something constructive to say before I tackled your second question. I've heard that Richard Dawkins' Out Campaign (outcampaign.org) will have resources for people in your situation, but at present these have not been made available.

How you reveal your change in philosophy to your parents is going to depend quite a bit on your parent's feelings and your relationship with them. Many people feel that just sitting down with them and having a heart-to-heart is the way to go. I, on the other hand, feel that some parents might see what appears to be a sudden change in your attitude as a sudden change in your beliefs, as opposed to a change that has developed within you over time. They might assume that there was a single incident that lead you to reject their beliefs or that you are being influenced an anti-religious source (as someone who joined a cult might be).

I don't know your parents so I don't know what will work with them. I think that it's generally better for them to see your beliefs developing than to see a "sudden" change. This could be done by talking with them about specific theological topics, expressing your doubts, and seeing how they react. Then again, if you think your parents might find out about your atheism from other sources, it might be better to break it to them now so that they don't end up feeling you've been hiding a "dark secret" from them.

I suppose this hasn't been all that helpful. What it boils down to is that every situation is unique and there is no one way to handle telling your parents you're an atheist. There is also no way to guarantee that they will not take it badly, but I think that if you reassure them that you are still the moral, ethical, thoughtful, loving child they brought up, they will be less likely to worry that you have become an "evil atheist" (if they are prone to such thinking).

I am going to ask my blog readers who have gone through an experience like this to please share it with the rest of us. We could use some real-life examples!

Note to my valued readers!

I've moved the blog portion of this site to blog.iamanatheist.com. Be sure to change your bookmarks. Thanks!

Thanks for the e-mail - I had forgotten about your site...

I get this sneaking suspicion that I may be a part of that group of particularly annoying Christians. I hold to what I believe is true, because I believe that Truth exists. Not that anything I believe automatically becomes true - I have changed my opinion several times concerning many issues - salvation among non-Christians not being the least of these.

Christianity is a salvation-based religion. It teaches that no man is perfect - meaning that all have done wrong, if only once - and that the punishment for wrongdoing is death. Thus, all men are equal, in that, by themselves, all men are dead in their wrongdoings. Christianity teaches that God sent Christ Jesus, his only begotten Son (also God - let's not get into that right now) to pay atonement for the wrongdoings of the world, so that we might evade death and receive life through Him.

So to say that "being a non-Christian theist is better than being an atheist" is woefully ignorant of the basic fact of Christianity. To be anything but one who believes and has trusted in the death, burial, Resurrection, and Ascension of Jesus is to be dead. There is no difference, then, between an atheist and a non-Christian theist.

This, I believe, touches on a major misconception about Christianity: it is not about doing good things. My friend explained it to me this way once:

If I am dead in my transgressions, I cannot do anything to the better or worse of mankind or myself. But when I come alive (spiritually) - freed from my sin and death - I do good things as a result, much in the same way I breathe in and out because I am physically alive. Doing good things is a byproduct of the hope that resides within a Christian.

As for "some brands of Christianity," I would contend that many are not Christianity at all, because Christianity - by definition - requires Christ. I do believe that anyone can find Christ on their own - Jeremiah 29:13 reads " 'You will (V)seek Me and find Me when you (W)search for Me with all your heart. '" Thus one can be a Christian without using the term "Christian" - a pygmy in Africa or something - but one cannot have salvation without Christ. No one else was perfect. No one else paid the atonement.

Christianity is not exclusive because it is a religion of death - quite the opposite. Christianity is intrinsically exclusive because to teach anything other than Life - and the true method therein - would be just like a living body not breathing. It is impossible.

I hope this makes sense to you - it took me a long time to figure out. Please, feel free to respond with questions/comments. I really don't want to engage in a debate or even semi-debate. I've found that internet based rivalry produces no good at all. I will try to point you towards resources that I know of - there have been entire books written on these things and the chances of my explaining it better online are very low. Thank you for the mail.

"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
- Jesus, John 14:6

At least so far, you don't seem like a "particularly annoying Christian." You come across as intelligent, non-judgmental, and willing to change your mind. It's hard to be annoying when you have all that going for you.

I also believe that truth exists. Where we may differ is that I think what I believe is true only insofar as I have the ability to find the truth.

My understanding is that those who say a non-Christian theist is preferable to an atheist are not talking about salvation or Christianity. Rather, they are talking about morality. The idea is that morality only comes from religion, and therefore someone without religion can't be trusted. I think this opinion is based on ignorance, and I do what I can to show that morality can have sources other than religion.

I understand what you are saying about Christianity and good works. I also understand that there is a bit of a disagreement between Protestants and Catholics (for example) on this issue.

I also understand what you mean when you say that good works are a byproduct of Christianity as opposed to a requirement of it. One problem I have encountered in the past with a few Protestants is that they take this idea to an extreme -- they turn their nose up at good works by non-Protestants because such things are not necessary for salvation, and (in extreme cases) look past their own sins because they are saved. I think -- and I hope you will agree -- that this is also a misunderstanding of Christianity.

I'm happy to honor your request not to debate, because I really don't see anything for us to debate. I appreciate your offer to recommend books on the subject, but I have already read many of them and prefer to have my discussions with individuals at this point.

Thanks again for writing!