Atheism is disbelief or lack of belief in God. A minority of atheists do believe in a universal spirit or god.
If we had our “questioning God” moments in our life, we would empathize with those who convert to Atheism. On the other hand, if our [Christian] life has been hunky-dory and comfortable thus far, we would be surprised, shocked, and even judgmental at those converting to Atheism. The fact of the matter is that we ought to empathize with those who convert. But we would empathize only if we understand their reasons to convert.
Why do people convert to Atheism?
Today’s younger generation is more resistant to Christianity. 70-80% of young non-Christians believe that Christianity is judgmental, hypocritical and old-fashioned.1
Author and columnist Larry Taunton, based on a research conducted in the USA, lists seven characteristics of those who have become atheists: 2
- They had attended church.
- The mission and message of their churches was vague.
- They felt their churches offered superficial answers to life’s difficult questions.
- They expressed their respect for those ministers who took the Bible seriously.
- Ages 14-17 were decisive.
- The decision to embrace unbelief was often an emotional one.
- The internet factored heavily into their conversion to atheism.
Moreover, proselytes to atheism think that Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution adequately explain the origin of the universe and life, respectively. Hence, they see no need for God.
Then there are those who believe that science offers all answers to their questions. Scientism is a view that any belief should be scientifically proven. If it cannot be scientifically proven, then it should not be believed. So Scientism posits science as the sole source of knowledge and truth.
But Scientism is not all encompassing. Scientism does not permeate into all domains, e.g. how would science determine morality? Whether for example torturing a little child is right or wrong?
Scientism is also self-refuting. Scientism argues that any proposition, if it cannot be proven by science, should be discarded. But this very proposition, i.e. “any proposition that cannot be proven by science should be discarded,” cannot be proven scientifically. Therefore, scientism is self-refuting. So we do not need to believe in Scientism.
Bestselling author Nancy Pearcey considers the unanswered intellectual questions as a great motivating factor for people to abandon Christianity. Churches should take the blame for this occurrence. Churches, Pearcey reckons, are good at establishing an emotional commitment but fail to satisfy the young Christians intellectually. Although apologetics resources are freely available on the internet, churches continue to neglect these resources.3
Some Christians are confounded when they try to understand certain complicated aspects of the Biblical narrative such as God killing people or the concept of hell, the virgin birth of Christ, hatred towards homosexuality etc. Since reasonable answers are not forthcoming from the local church the migration towards atheism continues.
But there is another side of the coin to this predicament. Some people do not want to hear the good answers. It is not that any amount of good answers convinces these people but that these people do not want to be convinced. They consciously reject the reasonable answers to the biblical conundrums.
Why do people not want to be convinced by reasonable answers to the difficult questions?
Quite a few people embrace Atheism because of emotional reasons such as an untimely death of a loved one, abuse, childhood scars etc. But they would not openly cite these reasons as cause for their conversion; instead they would cite intellectual reasons as causes, perhaps because citing intellectual reasons elevates them in their society. These emotional reasons remain unattended and unresolved in their lives, plunging them deeper into the realms of warfare against God.
An article in BBC cites more reasons for people choosing Atheism: 4
- Lack of evidence
- God is unnecessary
- Arguments for God aren’t convincing
- The problem of evil
- Science and the history of thought
- God is meaningless
- God is a psychological factor
- God is a social function
- Karl Marx’s criticisms of religion
- God is not apparent
Christian scholars have debunked every reason in a way that more than adequately demonstrates Christianity’s truthfulness. If Christianity is true, Atheism is false. If Atheism is false, none need to believe in Atheism.
Consider this from another perspective. What does Christianity offer that Atheism does not? Here are a few salient features of Christianity that demonstrate God’s power upon those who believe HIM.
First, the salvation (deliverance) offered by the Lord Jesus Christ, who died for the sins of mankind, is the most realistic and practical solution. All we need to do is to believe in Christ, love HIM for what HE has done for us, and obey HIM all through the days of our lives. No amount of good work that we may do will fetch us salvation, for we cannot be perfect in this life.
Second, God offers hope and justice to every Christian – a hope that I will blissfully coexist with God in heaven unto eternity. I know that God will annihilate evil and judge men for what they have done. Hence justice would be upheld, especially to those who did not receive it in this time and age.
Third, God offers joy to every Christian. I am joyful, for I am wonderfully made in the image of the living God and that I am not alone but God lives in me to help me through life’s painful situations. This joy is neither predicated upon nor is an entailment of my material possessions, but this joy is a fruit of my spiritual connection with God.
Lastly, God offers me peace. God overwhelms me with HIS peace especially when I am in distress. This peace transcends human understanding.
In a nutshell, God redeems me and offers me hope, justice, joy and peace! These intangible essentials are not linked to our earthly success but God offers it to everyone who believes in HIM, for these are necessary for the successful sustenance of our life.
In contrast, what does Atheism offer?
Significantly, some secular thinkers have reasoned that Atheism is nothing but a farce. Here are the words of one such secular thinker, “I was in fact rather a staunch atheist myself. I tried to be respectful but in private often railed against the “silly” people with their “sky god fairy-tales”…I was both completely ignorant of the fact that my beliefs themselves were the product of cultural indoctrination of a rather crude variety. At that stage I also believed that all religious beliefs were the result of indoctrination and that, having avoided that, my atheism was the natural and correct human response to life on earth.
Eventually I realized that Atheism, was rather flawed in its confident claim to know that there is no god. It occurred to me that it would be almost impossible to prove or know that there is no god.
The point about the death of Atheism is not that the existence of god has been proven, the point is that the existence of non-material interactions of many kinds has been proven. The existence of the world beyond the visible physical material world has been proven in dozens if not thousands of ways.”5
Atheism isolates man by disengaging God from him. An atheist would be lonely. He would be free to act on his own selfish and imperfect counsel or be dependent on the imperfect, selfish and corrupt counsel of fellow men. Atheism neither posits salvation nor offers an eternal hope, joy, and peace.
Atheism is firmly anchored in the temporal and the tentative now. Atheism reduces our life to a mere social activity thereby robbing us of a fascinating and life-changing communion with God. Atheism robs man of the hope and joy of expecting an eternal life post our death.
In a nutshell, Atheism, a dark phenomenon, relegates man into greater darkness.
What could we do when fellow Christians embrace unbelief?
If we are in the domain of those abandoning Christianity to Atheism, we could love and pray for them and offer ourselves as an ever-available option for any discussions or prayers.
May we be able to present the reason for the hope that we have in Christ. May those who have abandoned God realize God’s presence and offer their lives to Christ.
Endnotes:
Websites were last accessed on 18th April 2016.
4 http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/beliefs/reasons_1.shtml#h10
5 https://crimesofempire.com/tag/reductive-materialism/
This article was originally published at http://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.in/2016/04/why-do-christians-become-atheists.html
As an atheist who was once a believer, I’d be happy to talk to any Christians, but what you’ll find is that there are no valid arguments for holding on to religion. It was humanity’s first guess about the nature of the universe, and like most first guesses, it is wrong. I challenge anyone here to try and argue for the existence of God, and I can refute it. It isn’t because I’m some mad genius, it because the arguments made by Christians are actually very weak and are only compelling to non-skeptical believers. Some food for thought is that if your god existed and wanted to bring world peace, it could easily do so. There would only be one holy book, one religion, but history shows that religions continues to divide and fracture. Christianity is dividing into more and more factions all the time and the reason is easy, people see problems with a faith and understand that a truth is incompatible with their faith. Instead of discarding religion altogether, they form new religions.
“Moreover, proselytes to atheism think that Big Bang Theory and the
Theory of Evolution adequately explain the origin of the universe and
life, respectively. Hence, they see no need for God.”
The theory of evolution is about the origin of species, not about the origin of life. One wonders why some people never learn that.
Great article! Thumbs up!
I don’t expect us to agree on things I have listed in these comments. But I think the biggest thing you and your readers can take away is that atheists don’t choose to be atheist. Most atheists are former Christians. They fought tooth and nail to not become one. So when you use apologetics when talking to them, they already know these arguments and probably know the Bible better than most Christians.
You may not think archaeology is important in your defense, but it probably played a big role with former Christians who are not atheists. So, it would be important for a Christian to know and understand archaeological finds and be able to explain why it doesn’t debunk the Bible. It it’s important not to just go to Christian academia for the answers. Go outside of it. Because if it’s the truth, it doesn’t matter where you got it from. And we are all searching for the truth, even atheists.
Adam, You are now resorting to making plain assertions without adequate premise. While I agree that some (not MOST) Christians have turned over to atheism, these conversions do not undermine Historic Christianity.
I have not seen an atheist, although I have discussed with quite a few, with extraordinary knowledge of the Bible. In fact most of the atheists I have encountered do not have adequate responses to the arguments presented by the theist and flow with wrong ideas.
One of the wrong
Raj,
You are missing my point. I am just explaining to you the type of people you are trying to interact with. Not trying to prove historic Christianity in that statement.
So if someone says the Earth is round, even though you say they are a source of lies, does that mean the Earth is not round?? Truth is truth. It is not subjective or conditional like you are trying to make it out to be.
I appreciate your going back and forth. I would be interested if you blogged about the evidence I listed on the historicity of the Old and New Testament. But without trying to personally offend you, I don’t expect it. Apologists don’t deal with the evidence. They try to attack the source by using the reasoning you just used. But your reasoning doesn’t prove if the evidence is true or false. It just gives you an excuse to believe what you want to belive.
I highly recommend listening to The Thinking Atheist podcast. I think it will give you better insight into atheists and equip you better when talking with them.
And, I did honestly seek God. I read the bible once a year. I was a church leader. I was over a missions program for many years. The question is how to someone like me become who I am today. That podcast will give you insight. So, respectfully, please don’t make assumptions about me when you don’t know me. Deal with the evidence. Even if it leads you where you don’t want to go.
I am unfollowing this post now. Thank you for the discussion. I feel I have added what I can to this discussion enough for people to make up their own minds and I have given you good resources to go to that are not just Christian bias. A true scholar looks at all sides of the debate.
Adam, I do not subscribe to subjective truths, for the truthfulness of Historic Christianity is predicated on objective truth, such as the presence of the Lord Jesus Christ, HIS crucifixion, and resurrection.
In order to understand the mind of an atheist, I can either listen to the Thinking Atheist podcast or read the works of Dawkins, Harris etc. I do not think there will be any type of contradiction between the Thinking Atheists and Dawkins / Harris et al.
You came out with an opening statement that claimed atheists do not need to prove the negative, but I explained why that notion is erroneous. In other words, a negative can indeed be proven. So I am not making any assumptions about your atheistic belief. I am only responding to your objections.
You had also mentioned that morality is a product of evolution, whereby you would also not be able to present a foundation to objective morality. If there is no foundation for objective moral values, then morality is subjective or relativistic in the atheistic worldview.
In fact, none of your bigwigs (Dawkins, Harris et al) in their books or their debates with Christians, were able to offer a foundation for objective moral values and duties. All they are able to posit is that “we dance to the music of our DNA” or the likes, which does not really offer a foundation to objective moral values. An atheist cannot meaningfully explain objective moral values. Therefore, the atheist cannot explain why man should be moral tomorrow. The atheist can only explain why mankind behaved in a certain way in the past.
Finally, I wish you had said that you studied the Bible well during your days of being a Christian. Instead you said that you read the Bible once a year. I do not think that anyone can learn anything from any book, let alone the Bible, if they read it only once a year.
Once again, I am not making any assumptions here, but am only responding to your statements or the statements made by other atheists.
Thank you for your thoughts. I did certainly enjoy sharing thoughts with you. God bless.
I see you over and over again on these posts, and you keep trying to disprove Christianity. I used to be you. I used to be an atheist, full of questions until my life took a dark turn. God led me right to Him. All I can say to you, all your answers are on the other side of faith. God won’t show you them until you trust in Him first. Its like biting into something tasty. You can’t explain it to someone who has never tasted it before. Its impossible.you can make arguments the rest of your life against God, but in the end you’ll face
Him anyway.
I used to be hardcore Christian but now I am atheist. We all have our reasons. As far as your comment about facing God on the judgment day, I encourage you to read Afterlife by Matthew O Reily on where the whole concept of a judgment day and an after life came from. It’s an interesting read.
I enjoyed your article. I have only one minor issue, whether or not there are benefits or a lack of benefits from Christianity, has little to do with truthfulness of it. God exists it is true whether we benefit from it or not. Jesus is God’s Son is true whether we benefit from His death on the cross or not. We benefit that is true, but the truthfulness of the gospel is not dependent on whether we benefit. I’m glad we do benefit though.
Thank you, Jim. I fully agree with you. Well said, brother…Remain blessed
Can’t prove a negative so not up to atheist to prove there is no god.
Atheism doesn’t claim to provide anything. It’s just the absence of believing in a god. Now secular humanism is atheistic and offers a lot.
Christians leave Christianity because when they look into it, you find out its a religion of its time based on a Greco-Roman worldview and not the first of its kind. It was successful at evolving since its inception and is still around. But its promises come up empty in today’s world. Religion all over the world report the same feelings, etc. as one experiences in Christianity. Music usually has a lot to do with it. Explained by biology and psychology. It has followed the typical pattern of other religions since its beginning of divisions and infighting.
The concept of heaven, hell and a devil can be traced to the Babylonians who influenced the Jews when they were in captivity.
Evolution explains morality. What it took to survive became our morals. Religion plays into that. You make people think the go to hell for disobeying, then they conform to standards that do keep people alive, such as not murdering. It for sure work for the Catholic church before the Reformation.
Evolution is a given in the scientific community. It is supported by DNA. Ironically, you see Christianity evolving to accept it after denying it for so along. Another example of how Christianity evolves with the culture.
The Archaeological record does not support the Bible. It contradicts it. Ex. No world wide flood. No evidence of an Exodus. No appearance of Egyptian words in the Hebrew language as she be found if the Israelite were there for 400 years. No secular records or letter from other nations of a King Solomon as should be found if he was as great as the Bible says he was.
I think the biggest misunderstanding of this article though is that people don’t choose to leave Christianity. It’s a gradual process. Things don’t make sense here and there. Then maybe something happens in the person’s life and they dig deep into the origins of Christianity and discover disturbing things that actually causes things to make better sense in their life. Then you see the big bubble of Christianity that is not taken seriously by professionals in their fields like scientists, etc. I mean, who spent there life learning science and trying to come up with evidence to refute evolution so they could make lots of money on their discovery and make a name for themselves – the pastor or the scientist with the PhD?
While the things pointed out about how Christianity gives purpose, hope peace, etc sound good, it doesn’t mean that what is believed is true. Religion is how mankind as given itself purpose, or has been used to rule over others.
These points are just things that briefly came to my mind when typing. If I was to get really serious, I would be giving you many more detailed points with many references to go with them. But you can always start but daring to read the work of Richard Carrier or looking at The Thinking Atheist website/podcast. Not to mention Hector Avalos, Bart Ehrman, Israel Kelstein, Raphael Lataster, Dan Barker, Robert Price, David Fitzgerald, Thomas Paine, etc.
Please note, I very rarely get a rebuttal of things I listed. Instead, I get attacks on these authors. But the topics brought up are never addressed.
How I wish there was a god and Christianity was true! I don’t wish against it. But the truth hurts.
Adam, thank you for taking time off to share your thoughts.
Your first statement (Can’t prove a negative so not up to atheist to prove there is no god) is wrong. Let me explain…
The proposition “You cannot prove a negative” is in fact a negative. So if you can prove your proposition “You cannot prove a negative” to be true, then you are proving a negative, in which case, your proposition “You cannot prove a negative” is invalid.
Here’s another example…”I do not not exist” is a negative. But I do exist, so the negative “I do not not exist” can indeed be proven.
This brings us to a fact that you can prove a negative.
Then we need to ask why atheists are quick to claim that the negative cannot be proven. Well as someone once said, it is plausible that atheists hide under the apparent cover of cannot-prove-the-negative, since they then can continue to believe what they believe, even if the evidences against their belief is reasonable and beyond.
I need to stop now, since I live in India and it’s rather late in the night. I have much more to say and I hope to say it soon. Meanwhile, do let me know if there are flaws in that which I have said.
Cheers & God bless!
Thanks for your response. Not proving a negative is a basic of philosophy. Playing word games around it does not get you around it. Just take a philosophy course. But this is only a small part of what I wrote. My more major points you did not address.
Thank you.
Adam, no offense, but the philosophy that teaches “negative cannot be proven” is folk philosophy. Serious philosophers do not think so. For your own good, please google “proving a negative” and you will come across links such as this…https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/believing-bull/201109/you-can-prove-negative
This is what William Lane Craig had to say about “proving a negative,” although the note is long, please read through this..
QUESTION: I’ve heard some Christian philosophers explain that atheism is untenable because philosophically/logically one can’t posit an absolute negative. Also, absolute certainity that there is no God means that one would have to be omniscient. How do we respond when someone says the same about the theist? Wouldn’t a theist have to be omniscient to be certain that God exists? Thank you!
Annissa
– country not specified
ANSWER: I’ve also heard both of those claims batted about in popular apologetical discussions, Annissa, and I find neither of them to be persuasive.
The first claim is, ironically, usually found on the lips of atheists, who thereby seek to excuse themselves from bearing any share of the burden of proof in the discussion. Usually, the claim is that a universal negative cannot be proved, and therefore the claim that “There is no God” is unprovable. The second claim is typically given as the reason why a universal negative cannot be proved: no matter how much knowledge you have acquired, there will always be more facts that you do not yet know, and perhaps the exception is among them. So one can never prove that there is no God. Perversely, this is somehow interpreted, not as an admission that atheism is indefensible, but as a demonstration that it is in no need of defense!
Unfortunately, the argument is misconceived on a couple of counts.
First, negative, universally quantified statements can be proved. We do this all the time. When we make statements about “all” or “none,” we are speaking about what is the case with respect to a certain domain. We are saying that all or none of the members of that domain have or has a certain property. If the domain is not too large, I can confidently make universally quantified affirmative and negative statements. For example, I am quite confident that “No U.S. Senator is a Muslim.” Or again, if I have a typical sample of the domain, I can make inductive inferences on the basis of the evidence from the sample to the whole, even if the whole domain is too large for me to canvass; for example, taking as my domain all the microbes on Earth, I can confidently assert, “No microbes have brains.”
Now someone might say that while it is admittedly true that negative, universal statements can sometimes be proven, still the point remains that in the case of God, the domain is too large and our sample too small to come to any negative conclusion. But those who propound this argument seem to think that the way one determines whether God exists is by taking a sort of universal survey to see if anything answering to the description of God exists somewhere out there. There are, however, other ways of coming to a knowledge of negative, universally quantified statements than doing an inductive survey.
For example, we can have knowledge of negative, universally quantified statements on the basis of things’ essential properties; for example, “No water molecules are composed of CO2.” (Even if something looked and behaved just like water but was made of CO2 , it still would not be water but just a look-alike substance.) Or if we could show that a notion is logically impossible, we would know that it does not exist; for example, “There are no married bachelors.” Significantly, many atheists have tried just this route to proving that God does not exist, arguing that the idea of a being which is all-powerful or all-knowing is logically incoherent.
Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/must-the-atheist-be-omniscient#ixzz4GSbbVKSa
You are saying there is a God. It’s up to you to prove there is. Not up to the atheist to prove there isn’t.
If I say you are a murderer is it home to you to prove that you are not or up to me to prove that you are? I
So are you now saying that it is possible to prove the negative, but it is still up to the Christian to prove that there is a God?
I say that we don’t need to. Let me quote R.C. Sproul here: “I’m giving you arguments for the existence of God, but I feel like I’m carrying coals to Newcastle because I have to tell you that I do not have to prove to you that God exists, because I think you already know it. Your problem is not that you do not know that God exists; your problem is that you despise the God whom you know exists. Your problem is not intellectual; it is moral—you hate God.”
Sproul, R. C.. Romans (St. Andrew’s Expositional Commentary) (p. 40). Crossway. Kindle Edition.
Take a look at these:
http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articles/proveanegative.html
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/believing-bull/201109/you-can-prove-negative
Some would say to prove the negative you would start with the assumption of the positive. In other words to prove that God does not exist you would need to start with the assumption that God does exist.
You are saying there is a God. It’s up to you to prove there is. Not up to the atheist to prove there isn’t.
If I say you are a murderer is it home to you to prove that you are not or up to me to prove that you are?
There’s enough arguments for the existence of God, Adam. Have you read this??
Alvin Plantinga, “Two Dozen (or so) Theistic Arguments,” Lecture presented at the 33rd Annual Philosophy Conference, Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois, October 23-25, 1986.
When a person is accused of murder, in the court of law one side will present evidences / arguments to prove that that person is a murderer and the other side will present evidences / arguments to prove that that person is NOT a murderer. The later is to prove the negative.
So the burden of proof for the nonexistence of God is upon the atheist as well.
But thank you for being candid about your Christianity. Would you please be kind enough to tell me when you accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal Savior?
25 years ago
I’m going to have to correct a misunderstanding: You say “the archaeological record does not support the Bible.” I am afraid that is incorrect. There are a greater proportion of Egyptian words in the Pentateuch than in the rest of the Old Testament Examples: Potiphar, Zaphenath-Paneah, Asenath, Rameses, and Oithom.
There are finds in Egypt which are consistent with the time, place and other details of the biblical accounts of the Israelites in Egypt. These finds include housing and tombs that could have been of the Israelites.
There was discovered in Egypt in 1896, the Merneptah Stela (a tablet) that mentions Israel. The context was that Israel was a significant entity in the late 13th century B.C.
The walls of Jericho were discovered in the 1930’s by John Garstang.
How about this for evidence of the flood?
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2012/12/12/archaeologist-claims-evidence-noahs-biblical-flood.html
I could go on, but I won’t.
Speaking of those who were once Christian who became Atheists, I don’ think that ever happened. I don’t believe they were Christian to began with, God doesn’t let His own go.
Couple of things then a list of how the bible is not supported by archaeology. Your last comment is very Calvinist and goes against the book of Hebrews.
Yes, walls were found around Jericho, but not during the time the Bible claims.
The names you mentioned are in the list I provide:
-Moses and Aaron were identified as fourth generation descendants of Jacob’s son Levi, while Joshua was declared to be a twelfth generation descendant of Joseph
-Archaeology completely disproved the contention of a sudden, massive population movement at the time of the Exodus
-Camels were not domesticated as beasts of burden earlier than the late second millennium and were not widely used in that capacity in the ancient Near East until after 1000 BC
-The camel caravan in the story of Joseph was carrying products that were lucrative in the Arabian trade in the eighth and seventh centuries BC
-The Philistines had not established their settlements along the coastal plain of Canaan until after 1200 BC
-From Assyrian sources we know there were no real kings and no state in Edom before the late eighth century BC
-The great war waged in Genesis 14 provides geographical information relevant only to the seventh century BC
-The first pharaoh named Ramesses came to the throne only in 1320 BC, more than a century after the biblical date
-Not a single campsite or sign of occupation from the time of Ramesses II and his immediate predecessors and successors has ever been identified in Sinai
-Archaeology has shown that there were no kings of Edom for the Israelites to meet
-A seventh century BC background is evident in some of the peculiar Egyptian names mentioned in the story of Joseph. Zaphenath-paneah, Potiphar, Potiphera and Asenath were used occasionally used in earlier periods but achieved their greatest popularity in the seventh and sixth centuries BC
-All the major places that play a role in the story of the wandering Israelites were inhabited in the seventh century. In some cases they were only occupied at that time
-The seventh century BC is when Israel had growing conflict with Egypt
-In the Bible, no Egyptians are reported outside the borders of Egypt and none are mentioned in any of the battles within Canaan. Yet contemporary texts and archeological finds indicate that they managed and carefully watched over the affairs of the country
-The formidable Canaanite cities described in the conquest narrative were not protected by fortifications
-The ancient Canaanite city of Megiddo disclosed evidence for strong Egyptian influence as late as the days of Ramesses VI, who ruled toward the end of the twelfth century BC. Long after the supposed conquest of Canaan by the Israelites
-The only independent mention of the name Israel in this period (the victory of Merneptah) announces that this otherwise obscure people, living in Canaan, had suffered a crushing defeat
-In Jericho, there was no trace of a settlement of any kind in the thirteenth century BC, and the earlier Late Bronze settlement, dating to the fourteenth century BC, was small and poor and unfortified
-The Bible reports that Joshua defeated Hazor, Aphek, Lachish and Megiddo. But archaeological evidence shows that the destruction of those cities took place over a span of more than a century
-No significant evidence for a tenth century BC occupation of Jersualem
-There is no archaeological evidence of the wealth, manpower, and organization required to support a large army like described of Israel in the Bible during David’s time
-No compelling archaeological evidence for the historical existence of a vase united monarchy, centered in Jerusalem, that encompassed the entire land of Israel
-No archaeological evidence that the north and south kingdom grew out of an earlier political unity
-No archaeological evidence that Jerusalem was anything more than a modest highland village in the time of David, Solomon, and Rehoboam
-The reported invasion of Samaria by Ben-hadad of Damascus did not take place during the reign of Ahab but later in the history of the northern kingdom
-Scholars point out that the literary form of the covenant between YHWH and the people of Israel in Deuteronomy is similar to the of early seventh century Assyrian vassal treaties that outline the right ans obligations of a subject people to their sovereign.
-Deuteronomy shows similarities to early Greek literature. In expressions of ideology within programmatic speeches, in the genre of blessing and cursing, and in the ceremonies of the foundation of new settlements
As far as the Calvinistic comment, I am not completely one, I am partially one.
As far as Jericho is concerned. In the digs there at Jericho the Early Bronze Age II strata were studied at Jericho, there are no less that 17 superimposed phases of building and rebuilding of the walls. Enough of the city has been excavated to show the houses were rather large and well built. The tombs of that period were used for mass burial. In one tomb at least 100 skulls were counted.
Ultimately, your initial argument said argument said that archaeological evidence contradicts the Bible. However much of what you said is that “there is no evidence….” An argument from silence is not necessarily contradictory, it just means the evidence hasn’t been found.
The date of camel domestication is disputed. Some believe that the camels were not domesticated before 1200 BC. But there is osteological and iconographic evidences that camels had been domesticated much earlier, say in the fourth millennium B.C.E. R.W. Bulliet traces the domestication in stages with the first stage occurring in southeastern Arabia in the fourth or third millennium B.C.E. and then spread to southwestern Arabia.
I think people dismiss the Bible because it is a religious text, but historically it is reliable.
You are proving my point. If is was given that the Bible is true and accurate, there would not be disputes on any of this because God would foresee this possibility. Instead, It is a product of its time. The authors who wrote it were not think about us living in the 21st century. But if there was a God, why would he let there be any doubt or controversy for anyone.
And please don’t say he wants people to search for him and you need faith. I did that for 35 years. When I allowed myself to anyalze the other side objectively, it made more since.
If the evidence I provided is true, it contradicts the Bible.
I don’t see how I’m proving your point. The accuracy of the text is far better than any other document from the time period. Yet no one even argues whether those documents are accurate or not. There is more at stake here.
You are correct when you say the authors who wrote it did not think about those of us in the 21st century. I cannot think of one reason why they would. The truth is I don’t know why God would let there be any doubt, but consider this if it was clear beyond a shadow of doubt there would still be those who say it is not true.
Even in Jesus time, there was no doubt that He healed the sick, caused the blind to see and the lame to walk, But they did not believe that He was the Son of God. It is not a lack of evidence that keeps people from God, it is animosity toward God.
For every link you provide for a flood, I can provide more that don’t support it. What about these:
https://ncse.com/cej/3/3/six-flood-arguments-creationists-cant-answer
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/02/090206-smaller-noah-flood.html
https://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/top-ten-reasons-noahs-flood-is-mythology/
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/flood357903.shtml
http://theologicalscribbles.blogspot.com/2008/07/did-noahs-flood-happen-evidence-says-no.html
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/evidence-for-a-flood-102813115/?no-ist
and many others….
I could go on, but I won’t.
Adam, You are missing a major point here. Historic Christianity does not need archaeology to validate it. Having said that, I am pretty much confident that if I take every single one of the points that you have raised about archaeology, I can reasonably find scholarly response from the Christian academia to debunk every claim of yours. Unfortunately lack of time prevents me from doing this exercise.
Having said this, do consider this point. Historic Christianity does not need archaeology to validate it. The resurrection of the Lord Jesus is a widely accepted fact. If Christ did resurrect, then Christianity is truthful, and the salvation that comes from Christ is the only way to heaven.
I do hope and pray that you would consider Christianity with an open mind. Blessings.
I disagree that the resurrection is a widely accepted fact. That is only in Christian circles, which is a minority. I strongly suggest reading Richard Carrier’s work to see how it’s product of its time.
I do not believe you can find response from Christian academia. I have already looked. I just see christians attacking the source but not addressing the issues. Obviously you must not have considered these things or you would have been ready to answer me. But you will not find the answers you hope are there. I encourage you to try. Historic Christianity does not need archaeology to validate it. But when it is contradicted by archaeology, it has a problem.
I was a Christian for 35 years. It’s when I had an open mind that I learned the truth, and it was Christianity.
This is not for the purpose of arguing. Just a list of things I have found that I have not found answers to from the Christian side. Some are addressed. But most are not. Some may be a little repetitive. Sorry. I can give you sources if you want them:
-No synagogue in Nazareth
-No cliff in Nazareth
-No Joseph – just a myth to cover up a teen pregnancy
-Pilate was one of the cruelest governors and was eventually removed by Rome because of his brutality and executions. It would be out of character for him to even give Jesus a hearing much less hesitate executing someone who claimed to be a king other than the Roman Emperor
-Crucifixion was punishment for lower class peasants.
-Give unto God what is God’s and give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s was understood at that time to mean to give the coin that was shown back to Caesar and take back the land given to the Jews by God
-Misnah rules out the Sanhedrin trial of Jesus since this kind of trial was not established until after 70AD
-Jesus would not have been literate or educated as only the rich were which rules out him being able to teach leaders at the age of 12
-James believed you still had to keep the law. James sent “false teachers” to Paul’s churches causing Paul to defend his apostleship and telling them not to believe any Gospel preached to them. He told them to imitate him
-The letter of James was a response to Paul as it emphasized actions over faith
-James and his followers died when Jerusalem was destroyed allowing Paul’s Christianity to take over
-The Romans were Hellenized and much more apt to believing a God dying for the world vs. the Jewish expectation of a Messiah saving them from Roman Rule
-Jesus clearing out the temple would have been reason enough alone to crucify him. Since the temple and government were intertwined (Jews offered sacrifices for Caesar so were allowed to operate), any treasonous act against the temple was one against Rome too.
-The temple was several football fields in length and could not have been cleared by one person
-NT was written in Greek and Jesus and disciples spoke in Aramaic. They were uneducated as evident by what was said of them being unlearned in Acts. It would be impractical to think they would first learn Greek then write in Greek.
-Paul’s letters were not collected together from the churches until the end of the 1st century though in 2 Peter there is mention of Paul being hard to understand when Peter was killed way before then
-In the ancient world it was believed that the earth was the center of the universe, hell was below, and heaven was directly above. Just like is reflected in the Bible.
-The idea of the Trinity in 1 John was added by a scribe during translation
-Mark was the first Gospel but the others used Mark and added to it by unknown authors to fight theological challenges, not who the church attributed them to at the end of the 1st century. Each book contains more supernatural elements the further away it gets away from the time of Christ.
-The Greek the New Testament letters were written in is consistent with 2nd century Greek and not the type of Greek used in the 1st century when the attributed authors lived.
The town of Nazareth was not mentioned in the Jewish scriptures, in the Talmud, or in the writings of Josephus
-The Greek gospels often wrote “Jesus the Nazarene” instead of “Jesus of Nazareth”
-There is no archeological evidence that the Israelites were ever outsiders to the land of Canaan.
-No Hellenistic coins have been found at Nazareth
-Archaeology says there were no people living in the Nazareth basin seven centuries before 1 AD. This is based off the fact that the coins, oil lamps, and shards found are from a later time. Not the time the Bible claims.
-No one has detected any evidence of a large public building (aka synagogue) in Nazareth dating earlier than the first Christian structure there which was erected in Byzantine times.
-Tombs are an important indicator that a village was established. Tombs in Nazareth are shown not to have popped up until the end of the 1st century AD. After the first Jewish Revolt (70AD).
-No one lived on the hillside of Nazareth or in the area while the settlement was Jewish until the 7th century AD
There is no archaeological evidence of there having been synagogues in the first century. Nor does the pious Pharisees movement seem to have existed there until after 70 AD
-The use of the term “rabbi” for scribes, and teachers seems to have become current only toward the end of the first century AD. Yet in Mark Jesus is called Rabi
-The gospel pronouncement stories fall in the same literary type as the Greek chreia, a brief introductory setting leading up to a pithy and/or humorous saying by the sage, who thus outwits his critics
-Justin Martyr and Firmicus Maternus tried to discount parallel and prior Christ like stories as Satanic counterfeits. These include the same rituals has communion and baptism
-The gospels match certain features often found in that of ancient romance novels
-The gospels showing of Pilate being desperate to give Jesus up to please the crowd is at odds with the historical Pilate known in history
-The Jesus story shares the same elements as people like Jesus be-Ananias, Simon bar-Giora, Carabbas, Theudas and the Egyptian, Jesus ben-Sapphiah, Jesus bar-Abbas, Elymas bar-Jesus, Jesus Justus, and the martyred Samaritan messiah
-The gospel life of Jesus corresponds in most particular ways with the worldwide paradigm of the Mythic Hero Archetype drawn from comparative studies of Indo-European and Semitic hero legends: mother is a royal virgin, father is a king, unusual conception, hero reputed to be son of god, attempt to kill hero, hero spirited away, reared by foster parents in a foreign country, no details of childhood, goes to future kingdom, becomes king, for a time he reigns uneventfully, he prescribes laws, later loss favor with gods or his subjects, driven from throne and city, meets with mysterious death, often at the top of a hill, no children succeed him, his body is not buried, he has one or more holy sepulchers
-There is no other account of the massive slaughter in Bethlehem even though Josephus detailed Herod’s crimes and atrosicitis . Many which was less than the killing of babies.
-Roman census was done for taxation purposes at one’s permanent residence. Not their ancestral hometown
-Luke 2:1 says Caesar Augustus ordered a worldwide census though there is no evidence of a simultaneous worldwide census under him
-Luke 1:26 says Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth which was under the rule of Herod Antipas and not the Romans. It applied to the rule of the Roman governor Quirinius which included Bethlehem, but not that was outside the control of the Romans
-Matthew and Luke said Jesus was born during the time of Herod the Great. Herod died 4 BC. The date of Quirinius’s census was 6 CE. A ten year difference.
-No historical evidence for any Roman census in Judea before 6 AD
-Daniel 11:45 predicted that Antiochus IV would die in a location between Jerusalem and the Mediterranean Sea, but he died in Persia.
-211 words in the letters of Paul were commonly used by second century writers. Not first century
-The symbol of the Christian substitutionary atonement had a preceding parallel in Hittite law.
-There was a copy of Acts circulating in the second century that’s over 10 percent longer than the one now in the Bible.
Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All by David Fitzerald
The first century is considered one of the best documented periods in ancient history (but no secular records of Jesus) Loc 224
Roman records show that the first such universal census as described in Matthew did not occur until during the reign of the emperor Vespasian in 74 CE Loc 239
First century writers, philosophers, historians who lived during Jesus time who did not mention Jesuse: Epictetus, Pompoinus, Mela, Martial, Juvenal, Seneca the Younger, Gallio, Seneca the Elder, Plutarch, Justus of Tiberias, Philo of Alexendria, Nicolaus of Damascus. Loc 411
Seneca the Younger (3 BCE – 6CE) records eclipses and other unusual natural phenomena, but makes no mention of the miraculous Star of Bethlehem, the multiple earthquakes in Jerusalem after Jesus’ death, or the worldwide (are at the very least region-wide) darkness at Christ’s crucifixion that he himself should have witnessed. – Loc 418
Justus of Tiberias (died CE 101) was personal secretary to King Herod Agrippa I (who supposedly met the apostle Paul)I and wrote a history of the Kingdom of Judah covering the entire time Jesus lived. He doesn’t say a single thing about Jesus. Loc 437
Nicolaus of Damascus (late first century BCE to early 1st century CE) was tutor of Cleopatra and Mark Antony and personal friend and historian to King Herod the Great. He wrote a world history in 144 books up to the end of Herod’s reign, relying heavily on Herold’s personal memoirs. Nicolaus would have been an eyewitness when the wise men came to Herod’s court and so badly troubled the king that he summoned all the chief priests and scribes for an emergency meeting to learn more about this rival messiah. Loc 446
Philo of Alexandria (BCE 20 – CE 50) was the greatest Jewish philosopher of the Greco-Roman world. He was certaintly interested in fringe religions, and not afraid to talk about them. He wrote a great deal on other Jewish sects of the time, such as the Essenes and the Therapeutae, but nothing on Jesus, or on Christianity either, even though his home of Alexandria was supposedly one of early cradles of Christianity. Loc461
Other historians and commenters after Jesus who never mentioned Jesus starting at Loc 484 (Kindle):
Pausanias – 2nd century
Aelius Aristides – 117 -181
Marcus Cornelius Fronto – 100-166
Maximus of Tyre – 2nd century
Athenaeus of Naucratis – CE 200
Lucuis Flavius Philostratus – 170-244
Diogenes Laertius – 3rd century
Sextus Empiricus – 3rd century
The name Jesus of Nazareth never appears in the Talmud until the last layers of Jewish Rabbinic literature in the 6th or 7th centuries. Loc 519
Ancient writers of the time of Jesus wrote about lesser interesting messiahs of the time but not of Jesus. Loc 548
Eusebius mentions that Philo of Alexendria wrote a book on Pilate’s persecution of the Jews (Historia Ecclesiastica, book 2, ch. 5) – one more book where Jesus certainly should have been mentioned, but wasn’t, since neither Eusebius nor anyone else ever cites this book for historical documentation of Jesus and his famous execution under Pilate’s watch. Loc 577
3rd Century Roman historian Cassius Dio spent 22 years chronicling 983 years of Roman history in 80 volumes. The 35th thru 60th books are complete with the exception of book 55 which covers years 12 BCE to 9 CE. This is where we would expect to find mention of the events described in the book of Matthew. Loc 586
The work of the Roman historian Tacitus has a gap under emperor Tiberius between med 29 CE and mid 31 CE, including all of the year 30 when Jesus may have been crucified. Loc 595
All critiques of Christianity from the early centuries of its existence have been lost. They survive only in brief excerpts quoted in books written by their Christian detractors. Loc 623
The Testimonium Flavianum in Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews that mentions Jesus has strong indications that the entire passage is an interpolation, including its non-Josephean vocabulary and misuse of terms. Loc 673
Many commentators, including Doherty, G. A. Wells and Peter Kirby, have noted that without the Testimonium passage, the two passages flanking it flow seamlessly into each other. Loc 683
The passage does not appear until the 4th century. Loc 683
Origen quoted extensively from Josephus but never mentions this passage and says our source about Jesus comes from the gospels. Loc 692
The term ‘charlatan’ is not something Josephus’ Roman audience would be familiar with. Loc 768
Virtually everything we know about the early centuries of Christianity come from Eusebius. There are over two dozen complaints from his contemporaries that survive that accuse Eusebius of lack of integrity, poor scholarship, deliberate misrepresentations in his histories, and hypocrisy. Loc 701
Eusebius’ famous documentation of Constantine’s battlefield vision was written after Constantine’s death and was different than what he said about Constantine when Constantine was alive. Loc 720
In 310, two years before Constantine’s great victory where Eusebius said he had a vision of the cross, Constantine claimed to have had a divine vision prophesying victory from Apollo. Loc 729
The mention of James the brother of Jesus refers to the sons of Damneus. This Jesus was forcefully made high priest by King Agrippa and his brother, James, was killed by Ananus. Loc 795
Constantine’s mother Helena went to the Holy Land, paying a great deal of money as she went, which resulted in the discovery of Jesus’ Tomb. This same discovery also led to later findings of Pieces of the True Cross and Holy Relics, such as the nails used to crucify Jesus. Helena’s trip inspired many others to follow in her footsteps. Loc 739
No one who had actually lived in Palestine would have made the mistakes that the author of Mark does. For instance, as Earl Doherty observes, Mark 7:31 tells us Jesus departed from the region of Tyre and went by way of Sidon towards the Sea of Galilee, in the region of the Decapolis, a trip 50 miles out of his way. Loc 969
In John 21 referring to the 153 fish caught, the number 153 just happened to be a sacred triangular number to the ancient Pythagoreans. Loc 990
Mark’s Jesus uses traditional pagan magic techniques (spit and magic words) to heal the blind and deaf. Loc 1026
Luke’s historical inaccuracies – Loc 1252
-Paul meeting Agrippa and Berenice, and even that Agrippa’s close friend Flavius Josephus would have mentioned
-anachronistic events that actually happened long after the time he claims the did, such as those described in Gamaliel’s speech in Acts 5
-Luke betrays unfamiliarity with basic facts of Judaism and Palestinian geography when he naively repeats Mark’s numerous mistakes without comment, and has Paul saying things like “I have belonged to the strictest sect of our religion and lived as a Pharisee” (Acts 26:5). If Luke was really acquainted with Judaism he would have known that even a Pharisee would admit that the Essenes were a far stricter sect.
Like his boss, the emperor Tiberius, the real Pontius Pilate was an arrogant, ruthless despot. Philo of Alexandria described him as “naturally inflexible and stubbornly relentless”. He committed “acts of corruption, insults rapine, outrages on the people, arrogance, repeated murders of innocent victims, and constant and most galling savagery”. Josephus described him as” extremely offensive, cruel and corrupt”. Pilate had no problems killing the natives, nor did he ever lose much sleep over whether they were innocent or not. Under his command, scores of innocent Jews were massacred, such as recorded in Josephus’ Antiquities vole 18.2
Justice Cohn says that any Jew who dared remind the governor of his duty toward the emperor, or to hint at more fervid patriotism would not be let live another hour. Loc 1306
When Pilate was recalled to Rome in 36 CE, it was not because of any reluctance to kill enemies, but yet for another notorious slaughter. Loc 1317
Cohn writes that there is not a single instance recorded anywhere of the Great or Small Sanhedrin ever acting as a investigatory agent of the Romans. Loc 1317
Nothing in Jewish Law or ritual would support the contention that by entering the king’s place or a courtroom would make a Jew become unpure. Loc 1317
Robert Price says that if the Sanhedrin had asked Pilate for the death penalty, it would have been death by stoning, at the Torah required. Loc 1327
The Jews never had a custom of freeing prisoners on Passover and there is no evidence that the Romans had no such customary pardon either. Loc 1336
Pharisees were a major presence in the Galilee area after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. 40 years after the time of Jesus. Not when the Gospels claimed. Loc 1415
It is natural that stories set in the Greek isles would involve a great deal of sea-going. Mark did this by inventing the sea of Galilee. No one ever referred to this small river-fed lake as a sea before Mark did. Loc 1433
Mark has Jesus embarking on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee, in what he describes as the “country of the Gerasenes”. But this is another of Mark’s geographical errors. Gerasa was more than 30 miles from the shore. Loc 1462
Jesus road to Emmaus to story appears to be taken from the ancient Roman legend of Romulus, who also appeared alive again after his death to his follower, travelling along the road, in a radiant new form before he returned to Heaven. Loc 1471
Celsus accused the early Christian scribes of unscrupulously altering texts left and right. Loc 1539
Origen stated “ the differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyist or the perverse audacity others. Loc 1548
Much of the ancient world’s classic literature was discarded or even put to the torch by the Christian West. As it was, nearly all the works of the Greek philosophers were lost to Dark Age Europe until the Crusades. Loc 1574
A large number of the 720 texts of the NT are not even complete books, much less complete Bibles, and a considerable number are not in the original language. Loc 1649
The reliability of a textual tradition is not determined by the number of root manuscripts we have, but by how closely they support one another. Loc 1659
Justin Martyr is the first Christian who quotes from a Gospel and this is not until the 150s. Often his quotes don’t match anything from our Gospels. Loc 1676
Christianity was not the only (or the first) religion to have a “Lord’s Supper”. Paul uses a term from the pagan mystery cults, kuriakon deipnon, “the Lord’s Supper”, for the ritual he claimed came exclusively to him. Loc 1851
Many, if not most of the mystery faiths throughout the Mediterranean world included communal sacred meals, often involving bread and wine. Loc 1851
There appear to be astrological motifs in the names of some Apostles and their stories in the Gospels. For example, “Thomas” was not a personal name in the NT times; it was the word for “Twin” as wells as the Hebrew name for the constellation Gemini. And the disciples James and John were nicknamed “Sons of Thunder,” just like the Roman Twins Castor and Pollux, one mortal and on the son of the Thunder god Zeus. Loc 2276
Just the mere fact that Jesus is “the Son of God” is a huge indication that he is a new creation based on the classical pagan model. It’s only when the other Mediterranean gods like Zeus begin having demigod sons with mortal women that God suddenly announces that he has a demigod son too. Loc 2391
The image of the faith as an unstoppable juggernaut is nothing but the invention of one fourth-century branch of Christianity. After over three centuries of bitter fighting, a single faction emerged as the “one true faith”. These victors wasted no time in rewriting the history of Christianity to portray themselves as the true “Orthodox” church who had kept a firm hold on the correct dogma. Loc 2409
Today, thanks in part to discoveries like the Nag Hammadi manuscripts, we know that the real growth of Christianity was nothing like the tidy, rosy pictures writers like Luke and Eusebius painted as official church history. Loc 2418
A letter from Pliny the Younger to the Emperor Trajan, written around year 111, also proves how unknown Christians were to most people, even in the early second century. In it Pliny freely admits he has no experience with Christians. In fact, he says he knows nothing about how they are to be punished or even charged (10.93. 1-2) Loc 2436
Christian writers used words like “all” and “everywhere” quite freely when they described their religion’s success, but in actuality, though we have a wealth of material documenting life in the Roman Empire – inscriptions, pagan histories texts and papyri – Christians are scarcely to be found before 250. The two fullest histories, written in the early third century, make no mention of them whatsoever. Loc 2455
According to Richard Carrier, throughout Palestine, vast amount of material evidence unmistakably document Jewish occupation and there is considerable evidence of pagan inhabitants – but there is no material evidence of any Christian population until centuries later. Loc 2473
Rome’s destruction was Christianity’s salvation. Traits that had long made Christianity so uninviting to the Roman elite, including disdain or “worldly” learning and culture, condemnation of wealth and materialism, and a focus away from this earthly life of suffering – all appealed to the poor and disenfranchised, a target demographic growing every day. Loc 2501
The change from paganism to Christianity created enormous windfall profits for the Emperor. Loc 2520
-If Jesus had been real –last chaper
There would not be the strange absence of biographical information about Jesus from Paul and everyone else in the earliest generations of Christian writers. Loc 2554
The Jesus movement would have begun in the Galilee and in Judea around Jerusalem, radiating out from there instead of divergent sects appearing scattershot all over the far corners of the empire in places like Alexandria, Greece, Rome and Asia Minor. Loc 2564
These same early Christian communities would be more homogenous. Loc 2564
There would not be early Christian communities who had no concept of Jesus dying for sins. Loc 2564
The writer of Philippians would not have had to insert a reference to the cross in 2: 5-11. Loc 2573
The list of witnesses to the risen Christ in 1 Cor. 15 would not conflict with the Gospels. Loc 2583
Paul’s problematic dynamic with the Jerusalem Pillars would be very different if he actually thought they had been family and disciples of Jesus. Loc 2583
The issues in the early church would have been resolved during Jesus times. Like circumcision, etc. Loc 2592
Paul would not have had reason to explain the Lord’s Supper. Loc 2601
And more listed in this chapter of the book
I’m sure you could, so I won’t engage in a link war. 🙂
Oh. I was just answering what you started;)
Richard Carrier is a proponent of Christ myth theory and to refute the resurrection, Carrier resorts to Hallucination theory. Moreover, Carrier speculates a lot, for instance in his debate with William Lane Craig, Carrier speculated about Simon of Cyrene. but when he was confronted by a member of the audience, Carrier said, “No, I don’t think so. I think Alexander is the symbol of Alexander the Great, and Rufus was a symbol for this Socratic philosopher with a similar name. I can’t prove this, but that is my speculation.”
Have you read Gary Habermas’ work on Christ’s resurrection?
Btw, Christ myth theory and hallucination theory have been adequately debunked. Its on the public domain.
Thank you for this article. At age 32, I’m really digging into what I believe.
You are welcome, Jessica. If at all you need any assistance in your search, then do feel free to contact me. My contact info is here http://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.in/p/contact_17.html
As part of your search you should speak to a variety of people. I am atheist and I can show you the problems I have with many religions if you’re interested. I rejected Christianity long ago, and I did so very easily after what I learned.