Thought Over Belief: Have You Carefully Considered The Reasons Why Christians Believe In God?

Have you carefully considered the reasons why Christians believe in God?

If you do want to read, but you’re strapped for time, the very basics of this answer can be found at the end, summed up into five handy points: just as the authors demands at the close of his answer to this question. I do not use quotes in the way the author does, because my thoughts do not need other people’s words to back up insubstantial beliefs.

I am starting to get a little more polarised against this book, and I think I may be adopting a tone which is closer to my actualy thoughts, rather than attempting to keep this neutral. I did warn you last time that this would happen but, please, read Christian arguments like those Carswell makes and form your own opinions, don’t let yourself be swayed by my thought.

Remember: Think For Yourself!

There are many reasons whilst people believe in God, or any real religion (with the exception of Buddhism, which people believe in for entirely different reasons it seems, and the origins of that religion are amongst the most disgusting cases of mind control that I have ever considered; and a few of the more modern ones, such as Pastafarianism et cetera), but they all essentially boil down to tradition, indoctrination and Fear.

So far as I can comprehend there are no reasons for any format of belief system besides tradition, besides a continued indoctrination of the young, who are told of God’s existence in the same way that they are told that the earth is round, that gravity exists, that people use language to communicate. By merging unfounded beliefs into things that the child can see are real, religion takes the form of a parasite, clinging onto actual subjects, like Mathematics, like Language, like Science.

Of course, fear is the main reason, and always has been the main reason, of spiritual belief. People are frightened that their lives are without meaning, that there is no afterlife, that they will not be able to see their dead family members and friends when they, too, are eventually buried or, if you have any kind of a conscience, cremated.

Religious people cannot accept the idea that we are nothing of any significance, unless we make ourselves significant. Christians in particular cannot accept the fact they are not loved by some all-knowing being, that there is no deity looking out for them and guiding them towards eventual joy. People cannot face the fact that death is an end, that there is no Heaven, no human soul and nothing lives forever.

The author of the book returns to the fact that everything Christians know about God are facts that God Himself relayed to us, and goes on to list some of these ‘facts’. Such opinionated things as the wonder of the universe, which attributing to a single creature, or a single creature claiming to have created, is such a massive degradation of everything the universe holds or an act of such narcissism that it manages to offend even me. For a long time, the author goes on about how slim the chances are of life ever developing, about how it requires this precise combination of ingredients, a sun of such a mass, a planet with such resources and such gravity et cetera, et cetera, whilst refusing to believe that, amongst the billions of billions of planets, surely at least one had to be able to support life.

Zeus? Is that you, you handsome devil? I took this image from an article entitled: ‘Dear Fellow Atheists, STOP Saying Christians Believe God is a Bearded Man in the Sky. They Don’t.’ You can click on the picture to head straight to it!

Oh no, it had to be some perfectly manicured upper class white hand which fine-tuned the universe so that we could exist. I haven’t really thought about it before, but there is an incredible sense of arrogance in the Christian faith; as though they think they are the centre of the universe and that everything was created for us.

His answer continues on like this for some paragraphs, giving examples of evolution and proclaiming that they are the work of intelligent design. Something tells me that Christians really do not understand the concept of time and development of species; at least, this author doesn’t.

He breaks into a tangent regarding the ingrained conscience, quoting Romans 2:15 to state that ‘people have a law written on their hearts’. He claims that this conscience is natural, whereas I would argue that it is simply a further product of society and arrogance.

There is a theory, one which I think is true, to an extent, that all acts of goodness are arrogant, because we receive pleasure from doing them. Society tries to enforce ‘morality’ and ‘generosity’ onto the human. These ideals are so ingrained into the fabric of our society, with the belief that they are ‘good’ even in a world where Good and Evil do not exist, that we will continue to enforce them upon our children.

I struggle with the remainder of the author’s answer, I do not mind confiding in you, because it subsequently goes to contain (if we believe it previously contained) no facts for the remainder of this answer. Instead he states, unequivocally, that the Scripture is fact and contains no private interpretation; that it was written by Holy Men who were moved by the Spirit and other such blatant claims that one cannot doubt the man’s belief, but one also cannot help but realise that Carswell can comprehend no view but his own.

Carswell says that ‘‘In The Beginning, God Created…’ and in those words alone atheism, humanism, spiritism, rationalism, materialism, deism, polytheism and pantheism are dispelled.’ This is a perfect example of why this book, nor any religious work written for the direct purpose of encouraging belief, can be trusted.

Carswells’ claims can, essentially, be boiled down to the idea that ‘I, and others, believe that this is true, therefore you are wrong.’

Of course, I am no better but, by his logic in the previous answer, I am not evil because I don’t believe in God, whereas he, in typical Christian format, is attempting to persuade those innocent men and women who are undecided. He uses language to assume agreement, which the reader is then expected to follow along with, until they see the issue of religion exactly as he does.

The writer of this does not do as I urged you to at the very beginning of this exercise; he does not think, he believes.

So True! Don’t think because you claim to be a “dedicated christian” you can judge and criticize others then say, “oh, God will just forgive me!” You will still face your judgement when your day comes, remember that! ;)
Well, not necessarily true, I know plenty of people who behave pleasantly but are absolute arseholes. I took this picture from ‘Muchpics’, though I’ve never been on there before. You can still head over to the original site, if you’d like to.

Towards the end of the answer, Carswell calls on the ‘Honest Sceptic’ (note how he addresses his challenge to the assumed readership of this book and not someone like myself, the disbeliever)’to explain the order, beauty and wonder of creation, the universality of human conscience, the Bible’s fulfilled promises, the evidence for the resurrection, and the powerful change of life that comes with Christian conversion.’ He asks ‘Would you be willing to call out to God, ask Him to make Himself known to you, and bring you into a relationship with Himself that is both intimate and eternal?’

I shall simply my response, my answer to his answer (which, bulked out by all the quotes he seemed unable to stop himself from using to affirm his arguments, amounted to 17 pages) in a few short paragraphs.

1. The Order, Beauty And Wonder Of Creation – Chance; enough of the universe is barren and, if the universe is as large as we currently believe it is (and does not turn out to be infinite, which is a possibility) then the existence of life is guaranteed.

2. The Universality Of Human Conscience – There is no universal conscience, merely a product of society which delusional figures (such as those who believe instead of think) are capable of putting aside if they are offended enough (religious persecution towards LGBT, other races, other beliefs, anyone who is capable of honest thought in a sterile environment (which isn’t me I know, ah well) and the massive historical evidence of religious atrocities and no actual reason for the belief of Christianity.

Also, religious terrorists (like inquisitors, crusaders or Jihadis) are quite happy to put aside their consciences for their beliefs: the conscience is not fixed thing, it can be avoided with enough delusion or indoctrination.

3. The Bible’s Fulfilled Promises – I am not really aware of any specific promises that have been fulfilled. They are written in the way that horoscopes are, such a vague answer that they can be attributed to almost anything. Another response, one which I disagree with, but which sounds cool, is that ‘If you throw enough shit at a wall, some of it will stick’.

4. Evidence For The Resurrection – There isn’t any. Humans recording things are no reason to believe that they ever occurred. Nobody is going around working to build an army against the Dark Lord Sauron, because Tolkien said he was coming back; no one’s raising a force to repel the Nadir, because Gemmel warned us of their horrors.

5. Powerful Change Of Life That Comes With Conversion – Once again, fear of judgement. Fear that they will suffer for their actions, fear of societal rejection. Fear, fear, fear: there are no positives to religion, particularly not Christianity, when such a threat hangs over anyone’s head.

Thank you for reading this answer which I kind of wish I’d spent more time on. Anyway; think before you believe.

Let me know if you agreed or disagreed (or if you actually managed to make it through the entirety of this answer).

Thought Over Belief: Whether or not you believe in God, what do you think Christians believe about Him?

Question 2: Whether or not you believe in God, what do you think Christians believe about him?

When I read this question and sat down to right this answer, the very first idea that popped into my head (which I’m going to say some omnipotent figure put there, because apparently it is okay to just make things up and attribute them to a greater entity than yourself) was to make some barbed joke around the paradoxes of Christian Belief, all the hundreds of variations and heresies which, in the past, have culminated in nothing besides constant screams of ‘Heresy’ and the excommunication of people who should have known better than to have their own opinions about the Lord.

I haven’t read the author’s answer yet, and so I will write what I think Christians believe; and here I will go for an average belief, rather than specify the beliefs of anyone particular splinter group within the all-encompassing threat of the Church.

I think that Christian’s believe that God created the Heavens and the Earth; that he is the ultimate judge of all good and all evil and that, without him, humanity would have no compass for morality.

(Incidentally, if God is the reason for the existence of Good and Evil as individual concepts, then that means that all Evil comes from Jehovah, even as all Good does? And yet where does Lucifer come into the equation if God is the ultimate evil? But, anyway, I digress.)

God created man in His own image, and everything known about him is information He, himself, relayed to men and women, or that his son, Jesus Christ, imparted onto the desperate, gullible creatures he called a flock.

I think, if I were the only figure capable of explaining myself, then I’d make myself sound as awesome as possible, wouldn’t you? I’d be all, ‘Hell yeah I invented the oceans and the birds and the trees and the mountains! What’s that? What about jealousy? Err… That was this other guy… Lucifer, yeah, he’s a bad ‘un’.

https://jcdefixio.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/4d82f-trinity2bsymbol_explanation_color2binverted.jpg
Quite a succinct way of displaying a parodoxical madness. Found on Jehovah’s Witness Symbols, which can be accessed by clicking on the picture.

I think that Christians believe that there is One God, and that he is split into three; the Father (a bad reproduction of Zeus), the Son (the friendly, lovable guy everyone seems to think is looking out for them in particular) and the Holy Ghost (the other one, the one that people seem to think imbued with all of the ‘mystical powers of the Lord’ and all that jargon.) This trinity is one of the most quoted paradoxes of the Christian faith; and it’s a pretty cool one to start with. I’ve heard it described as a clover; one plant with three leaves, but it also struck me as more like a Hydra that someone took too far.

Then we go into the whole ‘God loves everyone’ absent of any real meaning and, in fact, a devaluation of the very concept of love. Any creature that loves everything, loves nothing; it is a bland, dour creature that has no real reason for being alive (if we consider that the rest of us actually do). For a God that ‘loves everyone’, he has certainly had a funny way of showing it over the years. From the Old Testament, he had this image of a vengeful, angry, proud creature, more like I imagine a god would be; check out Deuteronomy – that is some real demonic language He enjoys.

Here is where I began to read the writer’s answer to his own question.

One thing which is obvious is that God likes to blow his own horn. Whilst the bible, the written interpretation of God’s ‘Holy Word’, gives repeated examples of his cruelty in the Old Testament, in the New Testament it attempts to paint him, in the words of the author, as ‘holy, righteous, just and fair, infinitely loving and compassionate to all’.

I do not really understand why Christians believe in that idea at all. If I told someone that I was completely trustworthy, that I loved them, that I only wanted what was best for them, and then set their house on fire; would I be worthy of their worship? God (saying for the sake of argument that He exists, though, of course, all logic screams to the opposite), as far as I have been able to see, is a bully and a thug; He is spiteful and proud and narcissistic and so desperate to convince people that he is a force of Good (ignoring the fact that, according to Christians, He is also the source of all evil) that I simply told them so and demanded that they believe, like a petulant child throwing a tantrum in a supermarket.

https://i2.wp.com/psnt.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/atheism2-e1327591128694.jpg
A pretty accurate representation of Atheism, I thought. I found this image on a blog post by TheBarkingAtheist, entitled ”Do Atheists Secretly Believe In God’ No!’, which you can access by clicking on the image.

But, here, we come to one of the main reasons why I dislike the very idea of a deity, why I think that people who do believe, instead of think, can be said to have lost their humanity. ‘He is God, and we are Humans.’ Those are the words of the author. ‘He is infinite, and we are finite and fickle’. It is an astonishingly clever racket; not being able to follow the ‘logic’ of their beliefs is part of the Christian belief system! Incredible! It is the source of all those ‘God moves in mysterious ways’ platitudes or the ‘It’s all part of God’s plan’ patronising madness.

Any real person would say that ‘We are Humans, and He is only God.’ Any creature that betrays itself, that surrenders its ability to think for the comforts of belief, is not a living thing at all. This is, of course, wholly an opinion, but I can’t count religious people as people; they are things, alien creatures lacking both the personal narcissism necessary (narcissism is not a bad thing, to an extent) for any attempt at understanding the world.

There are no shackles on humanity from a greater creature; we are free from an outside influence and, instead, all the good and evil that we do, we do to ourselves. The bible was written by people, broken people who shared a mass delusion, who had been brainwashed for no other reason than they were intelligent enough to wonder what the human condition was, but not brave enough to accept the reality that we, as people, are just animals with a large enough brain to develop self-loathing.

What a wonderful creature we are! Anything which claims dominion over us, besides ourselves, I think, is a lie and an enemy to be fought with tooth and nail and what technology we can build.

Though I haven’t talked much about the author’s answer in this reply, that is because a good ninety percent of the answer is simply the author stating opinion as fact (in the same way which I might have done in this answer and, if I have done so, I wholeheartedly apologise), claiming that ‘God is Knowable’, ‘The Almighty God came into our world,’ ‘God became a man and made his dwelling with us’ and that ‘Jesus then rose again, demonstrating the power of God, expressed in His self-sacrificing love for us.’

I fear that this book is rapidly devolving into the writer answering questions with opinion, decorated as fact. The simple truth appears to be that Roger Carswell does not seek, necessarily to encourage people to think about God and Christianity, but instead to slowly and blatantly indoctrinate them into sharing his view of religion.

I fear that I will end up the same as him, but from the flipside; that I will display my opinion as fact and demand for a new society, ‘untainted by the delusions of the past’, and other language with racist overtones.

I hope not, but I do not direct that hope at such a vile, aggrandising creature as Jehovah, who demands that I surrender that which I consider to be my humanity in his worship.

Once again, if you disagree, or agree, or think that I’m already starting to slip into a similar tone of self-righteous voice as the writer of ‘Before You Say ‘I Don’t Believe”, be sure to let me know. Remember, I entirely recommend reading such examples of literature yourself and forming your own opinions. If nothing else, I would certainly recommend considering these questions for yourself.

As always, thank you for reading.

Thought Over Belief: Can You Agree With Christians That Questions About God Are Of The Upmost Importance?

The Question: Can you agree with Christians that questions about God are of the upmost importance?
Once again, this may be a bit wordy. I may consider cutting these down, or perhaps splitting them into two parts per question, if they continue to be of this length.

An obvious starting point, yes? How could one not believe that it is important to establish whether or not there is an all-knowing figure hidden in the clouds?

Such questions only carry any sense of importance as long as people still believe that there is some all-knowing figure squatting on a cloud. Yes, I am very aware that such an image is a massive simplification of the beliefs of Christians, and one I may not necessarily like to make, but the fact remains that, without people claiming that such a creature as Jehovah exists, there would be no questions to consider important or unimportant.

Note, if you will, the format of the question does not ask about the importance of God’s existence, in the writer’s mind, this is a fact and is not even up for debate. It seems that the question itself is designed to convince the reader that God exists, even whilst adopting a neutral tone. An innocent question, of course, but by answering ‘yes’, the reader automatically admits the existence of God. By answering ‘no’, one reveals oneself to be a fool, destined to be swayed by the simple arguments in the following answer.

The writer reveals himself in this early stage to be something of an idealist, when he states that ‘Without a Creator, it is impossible to have absolute standards of right and wrong’. Well, I agree with him there; the only disagreement I would have is that he seems to think that there are absolute standards of right and wrong. There is no good, there is no evil, as absolute concepts at any rate. In fact, if we were to say that there was actually a good and evil, then surely anyone with any understanding of logic must agree that it is relative?

What is good for me might be terrible for someone else; if I took someone’s job then that would good for me, however I would be evil to them, a foul creature designed to steal their livelihood and reduce them to the jobseeker’s line? And, yet, I do not think I am evil.

Anyway, the argument that the masses only disbelieve the ‘truth’ of Christ because the liberal atheist (and I imagine that word filled with quite an incredibly sense of spite, but that is just me) media has ‘brainwashed’ innocents against religion, and that this lack of knowledge about religion is accompanied by a deep antagonism actually has some merit.

I do not think anyone can argue the fact that, currently, the large proportion of the mainstream British media is liberal and atheist, perhaps with the exception of certain newspapers and, yes, I do think that very few people actually know that much about the bible. What surprises me, however, is that this entire book seems to bear the assumption that the ONLY reason that people do not believe in Christianity is because of a lack of religious education. Well, I know a fair bit about religion, I’d say; at least more than the general populace of this country.

I’ve read the bible, I’ve been in churches, I went to a protestant primary school and a catholic college; I’ve studied history and I have researched quite a lot about other religions, about the arguments for and against them, about the differences between religious beliefs and the horrible/wonderful things these beliefs have done for the progression of humanity into the species we are today (though I would hardly say that who we are today, as a species, is a particularly good thing).

The author lists several benefits of becoming Christian, claiming that it turns their lives around and encourages a more spiritual kind of life, so that they are able to enjoy eternal life et cetera. There are, of course, examples of people really starting to believe in God and their lives becoming better as a result. I have seen no evidence, however that it has anything to do with the existence of Jehovah. Instead, it is out of fear of eternal damnation, lust for the heavenly pleasures the religion promises (which seem horrible to me; I don’t really want to spend eternity with some of history’s vilest people, and the modern trend of paedophilia, but anyway) or the fact that Christianity hits people when they are at their lowest. It forgives them for their imagined sins, reminds them that it isn’t really their fault, that they can be washed clean in the forgiveness of the Lord et cetera.

It acts, essentially, as a crutch for the weak-minded, for people who are plagued by their own consciences or by their society. Religion has been discussed as the Opiate of the Masses (thank you Marx for that brilliant, if massively over-used quotation) and there is certainly a great deal of merit to that idea.

The writer quotes Verna Wright, a medical professor at the University of Leeds, whose first response to the benefits of belief were that it ‘Gives comfort to a dying man’. That is not a good reason. It is incredibly patronising to make something up just so somebody isn’t afraid of dying. People, to a degree, should be afraid of dying! It is what has driven humanity for hundreds of years. Of course, the fact that death is an inevitability should remove the fear, but it doesn’t really. Everybody thinks they’re immortal and if they believe that a white-bearded figure in the sky can lead them to that immortality, of which they have already convinced themselves, most would be a fool not to agree.

If that’s the truth, then I’m proud to be a fool.

Jesus Christ: With sneering doubters becoming ever more vocal in their dismissive attitudes towards Christianity AN Wilson says we should no longer be cowed
A lovely, if un-unique, painting of Christ. Taken from the linked article below.

 

The writer finishes chapter 1, the first question, with an overlong quote from a Daily Mail article (hmm, not off to a great start there with the backing information, really), which you can read here.

I began to write a rebuttal to this article as well, though there are several points within it that I just couldn’t argue without continuously repeating myself. There is a point around halfway through the article, where the ‘journalist’, A N Wilson, begins a long ramble about Easter, saying essentially that he doesn’t need proof or evidence, or even logic, because he has faith. He lists the people whom shared his belief, such as Dostoyevsky and T.S. Eliot, famous people with fantastic literary careers, the mention of whose very name should send ‘literary’ ‘atheistic’ ‘liberals’ like myself into a hushed kind of silence.

How could we, after all, hope to contend with such renowned names?

This is a part of religion I hate. The whole ‘These people believed what I do, so I must be right!’ shtick.

At no point should the fact that other people believe something affect your own beliefs. Thought is the single greatest thing that humanity has, not belief; whatever history would then have us ‘believe’.

Are questions about God of the upmost importance? No; because religious people have no answers, simply vague motions towards the sky and the history books and traditions which started as political messages or as ways of earning money for the select group of people at the top of the spiritual chain.

It fascinates me that irreligious people are the ones looking for answers, whilst religious people mutter the same obscene prayers to the great silence and mutter about tradition and their morality.

Thought Over Belief: An Introduction

My reaction to the introduction of ‘Before You Say ‘I Don’t Believe”.
Sorry if it’s a bit wordy.


When I first picked this book up, minutes after singing a series of some of the vilest hymns I have ever had the misfortune to utter, all because I had been dragged to a wedding I had no desire to go to, I didn’t believe in God. I thought of Him as a delusion, an excuse and an answer to a series of questions only those of a weak constitution, of a pathetic mentality, needed answering.

The very second paragraph of this book’s introduction claims that it is ‘trendy’ to claim that one is not a ‘person of faith’. It says that it has become fashionable for the ‘movers, shakers and celebrities of society to ridicule both the Christian faith and those who profess to trust Christ’. I think I knew, then, that I had to try and answer the questions put forward by the author myself.

I am not a ‘mover’, a ‘shaker’ and I will never be a celebrity. I will never be trendy, or fashionable and, to a degree, I even take issue with the idea that it is trendy to malign faith. What the writer seems not to realise is that to be ‘trendy’ nowadays, one cannot even care whether there is a God or not. The fashionable ones are those who seem to reject thought as an entity and, instead, focus themselves entirely on an even greater mass consumption.

Consume has become the new hymn, and the fact that there are still people like us claiming that ‘There Is a God!’ or ‘There Is No God!’, or ‘God Has Lost Faith In You!’ or ‘God Is Dead’ doesn’t really matter. For the young, for the ‘trendy’, God does not enter into their consciousness. This ‘tide of unbelief’, as the writer calls it, is a strange thing. I think I am firmly in the centre of this tide, though it has washed around me as though I were a rock, or an island, if you will forgive the somewhat narcissistic continuation of his metaphor.

In the introduction, I find it fascinating that the author claims that society’s vehemence to the scorning of other faiths besides Christianity is quite right, and the reason that Christianity is targeted is because of that specific religion’s history of ‘turning the other cheek’.

The Bible
Christianity is fortunate in that, to me, at least, it can boast some of the most striking imagery in history. This image was taken from an article published in the Belfast Telegraph, entitled ‘The Bible Should Not Be The Last Word For Politicians’.

I don’t want to take an oppositional view simply because I am not a Christian and the writer is, and I hope I will agree with him at points within this reply, but at this I feel somewhat irritated, if irritation can be considered the right word.

Christianity is targeted with such precision in western society, particularly in Europe, because our history is plagued with the religion. This ‘tide of unbelief’ was long preceded by a ‘tide of belief’, when the religion swept across every country, taking their previous religions and obliterating them, destroying them, burning them from the face of the world because of one of the many paradoxes the Christian faith preaches, ‘Love of one’s enemies’.

Even if we are to ignore such a proven paradox as that, because this is simply the introduction and I’m sure I will have plenty of opportunities to argue that particular point, I will bring up a few historical events in its place : The Crusades, including the Albigensian, the Aragonese and the Northern Crusades, not to mention the horrific failure of the Children’s Crusade; the witch-hunts (which have been estimated to have caused the deaths of 70,000 to 100,000 innocents in Europe alone), and the initial comings of Christianity to pagan lands, which were long, bloody years when a system of belief attempted to strike out the long-standing beliefs through a mixture of political pressure, propaganda (i.e. the ‘bravery’ of Saints and Martyrs like St Alban) and the continued abhorrence of any belief system which stood outside of the established Christian norm (from ‘differing’ religions such as Hinduism and Judaism, to simple differences of opinion within the Christian community itself, such as Pelagianism, Adoptionism and even the now widely held ‘Americanism’, which many still tie into the Christian faith).

Though this is merely a response, I have decided to entitle this collective of answers as ‘Thought Over Belief’; no matter what kind of connotations that title may hold, I think that it contains the basic ideologies I hold close to my own chest, as I am sure the author of ‘Before You Say ‘I Don’t Believe’’ mirrors the intentions of his book.

I do not want dogmatic agreement, I don’t want to shatter belief or reinforce disbelief, or the other way around. But I do want people to think, just think, even if such thoughts fail to result in action. Just consider the opposite opinions to your own, argue on their behalf against yourself, and always, always, take pleasure in the existence of your freedoms, however limited they might be.

Don’t Believe; just Think.

A Further Note; As I have read through this book I have noticed a careful use of language, if an obvious one. Whilst openly admitting that he is attempting to offer some information to answer those questions he has conjured up, the author often slips, either by accident or, as I fear, design, into formats of language designed to encourage agreement. This is, of course, an obvious tactic, and I have no doubt that, at times, I will find myself slipping into a similar language as my own opinions take sway over these words I am typing.

Be aware of my use, and his, of certain adjectives which are designed to persuade you to one side or the other, or the structuring of sentences which might lead you along a certain belief system, or lack thereof, and don’t let yourself, necessarily, be swayed by my opinions, or his.

In his book, the author quotes the Gospel of John; 20:31 – ‘these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.’ Whilst John writes as propaganda, the author here at least claims to encourage the consideration of Christ over today’s Secularist agenda. Bear in mind that he is strongly of one opinion, whilst I am strongly of the other.

Think for yourself and, please, read either the book I am arguing against; Roger Carswell’s ‘Before You Say ‘I Don’t Believe’’ or other examples of religious literature which might take a similar question and answer format before taking a stance of mindless agreement or disagreement. As I have said before, and I will no doubt continue to say, question yourself, question me; question everything as much as you can without allowing your opinions to get in the way.

My opinions are my own and I do not want them replicated without argument and thought, and I would state that anyone whom does follow anything which relies wholly on opinion, such as a religious belief with no evidence, any absolutist political or societal beliefs in some fails in the definition of ‘Human’ which I, personally, hold.

It might also be useful for you to remember two things; that I am not a good man, I have never been a ‘good’ man, I thinkthat good as an absolute concept does not exist, and that ‘Believe’ has much stronger connotations than thought does so, please, take that into your analysis of my answers.

Thank you.

Though there is little to argue with in this introduction, if you do take offence or agree with any points I make (or if I my facts are incorrect in some way, which is entirely likely), please let me know.

Thought Over Belief

Dear reader, some time ago now, I was dragged to a Baptist wedding, somewhat against my will.

There, they had a preacher interupt the ceremony by launching into a rant which, to me, appeared non-sensical and paradoxical and, essentially, idiotic. However, I was very well behaved, and didn’t even try to get in a religious argument, mostly because it was my girlfriend’s friends and not my own. You can read more about this little event here, I’ve already gone over it once before.

Anyway, I took a copy of one of the books he was offering, entitled ‘Before You Say ‘I don’t Believe” by the Christian author Roger Carswell. Within the pages of this book the writer asks a series of question, questions I have decided to answer, in much the same way that he has.

I hope you find the time to read these answers as I write them and I would certainly recommend picking up this book, or any example of Christian (or any religion’s) essential propaganda. It makes for some interesting reading.

I have decided to title this little rebuttal of mine ‘Thought Over Belief’; at least, as a working title. If, at any point, you find yourself disagreeing with me then, by all means, argue your point; I look forward to a few, hopefully, interesting debates.

I would like to point out that I am not simply writing this as a point of disagreement; I will try to be fair but, as an Atheist with some fairly strong opinions (which I will try to mute, but I fear they will eventually break through my sense of fairness) it is likely I will disagree with his arguments more often than not and I, already, object to some of the techniques the writer uses within the book.

Thank you.