Christianity is At Best Only Possibly True

Yep, that's what I think and I can demonstrate this.

There are always some anomalies, or unsolved mysteries, that have not yet been solved when we hold certain things to be true. When it comes to these anomalies we place them on the back-burner and hope future discoveries or evidence will surface to help us solve them. And we can legitimately try to offer possible scenarios for why we think these anomalies can be solved. These possibilities are not considered probably true, but only possibly true. In the meantime we interpret them in light of a greater set of background ideas we hold to be probably true.

My claim is that in order to maintain and defend Christianity the Christian must resort to offering possible scenarios at almost every turn. My claim is that the more they are forced to resort to these possible scenarios then the less likely their background knowledge is true which forms the backdrop to legitimately use these possible scenarios in the first place.

This is the whole reason for my Reality Check posts. At almost every turn the Christian faith is based on possibilities. So Christianity can only at best be shown to be possibly true. There is no probability to their background knowledge at all, so resorting to possible scenarios is all they have. Since that is clear to demonstration the Christian faith is only possibly true, not probably true. And who in their right mind would commit their whole life to a possibility? No me. I don't think any knowledgeable person would.

38 comments:

Vilges Suola said...

The whole 'Jesus died for your sins, and deep down you know this and only your obduracy and pride prevent you from acknowledging the fact' is so patently ABSURD I don't know how anyone might even admit its possibility. By what mechanism does the death of some man 2000 years ago atone for my alleged 'sins'? Where's the morality in letting me off the hook just because I choose to believe this happened? It's bonkers.

Lvka said...

And who in their right mind would commit their whole life to a possibility?


What is it about the Christian life-style that you don't like?

Robert the Skeptic said...

Of course, Christians (or any religion) do not even remotely consider that their beliefs could be merely possible or probable for that matter; they instead hold their beliefs as well founded in "evidence" and "authority" (scriptures/holy texts). In my personal interactions with Christians, I am discouraged when I hit this lump of granite in their thinking. When they cite the Holy Book, one of the few options available to me is to immediately dismiss it as the fallible and inconsistent musings of man and that it has no deistic origin.

I just recently discovered this site - remarkable work! I applaud and sincerely thank you.

Russ said...

Lvka said,

What is it about the Christian life-style that you don't like?

What would one consider a Christian lifestyle? Research shows that a small fraction of Christians in the US go to church on their chosen sabbaths, but other than that they play video games, watch television and surf the net for porn.

DM said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Saint Brian the Godless said...

WTF? Who left the door open?

This post is excellent, btw. But that last person needs meds, and fast.

Saint Brian the Godless said...

Lvka said,

What is it about the Christian life-style that you don't like?
---------------
Mainly for me it's the arrogant pride and defective morality system based in coercion and not empathy or love. But the extreme hypocrisy and appalling intentional ignorance and inability to assimilate anything new into their worldview is in there, too.

Actually I could go on for hours on this one question.

DM said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
LadyAtheist said...

If you want to convert atheists, you'll need more than psychotic spam, DM. We're THINKERS.

Saint Brian the Godless said...

what happens when you LOSE Pascal's Wager...
-----------------
...is that you become a Christian.

The loss? All of reality. You've sold out on life due to FEAR.

As you were supposed to. That's the programming at work. They lead you by your nose through your fear of the afterlife (hell) so they can use you in this one.

Coward.

Saint Brian the Godless said...

"This is the deepest level of hell, where the fallen angel Satan himself resides. His wings flap eternally, producing chilling cold winds that freeze the thick ice found in Cocytus..."
------------------
This is my favorite part. It's on the mental level of a five-year-old, and yet actual adults believe this silliness. Wow.

Woe be unto us, as in U.S., for we are a stupid lot.

DM said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Saint Brian the Godless said...

(sigh)

A determined idiot.

I wonder what they hope to accomplish?

DM said...

your DESTRUCTION...

Saint Brian the Godless said...

your DESTRUCTION...
----------------------
Oh really.

Nice to see how loving your faith is and how open you are to others who do not think like you do. Nice to see you DEMONSTRATE the fact that you are morally inferior with your foam-at-the-mouth antisocial ravings. Nice to see you act so much like Jesus did. He was obviously into other people's destruction, too. I mean, that's all he talked about, right? At least, all you got out of it.

In fact, I hope they don't keep deleting you, since it is always good to have an example of what you're talking about on display for all to see. Your only purpose in the world is to become what is called a 'cautionary tale.' Someone good and decent people can tell their children about to scare them into *staying in school* and *not becoming an idiot.*

Saint Brian the Godless said...

Oh, and btw..

When you said 'your DESTRUCTION' you forgot the obligatory 'Muah hah hah hah hah!!!'

GearHedEd said...

Don't feed the trolls...

Saint Brian the Godless said...

Oh yeah.

Sorry. Hard to resist sometimes. I mean, 'your DESTRUCTION!' is pretty heavy sh*t.

I'll refrain in the future.

LadyAtheist said...

I thought Christians were supposed to be loving and hope for the conversion of the atheist, not destruction. So sorry to hear that Christians are bitter and angry. Their religion was advertised as making people just the opposite. Well, I guess I won't convert now. *pout*

Clare said...

"What is it about the Christian life-style that you don't like?"

Lyvka how about hypocrisy, dishonesty, wasting time (as in going to Church), wasting money (tithing and donations, mostly going to support the church building or the preacher's expenses)and being patronising or downright hostile to people who do not share your view. I am not talking about you personally ,just answering your question.

cuddlz24 said...

"Christians are committed to the possibility that God exists. Who would want to commit their lives to a possibility? I sure wouldn't!"

Dude, you've committed your life to the POSSIBILITY that God DOESN'T exist! LOL, choose your arguments more carefully if you want to sound credible.

By the way much of science starts out with possibilities and atheism is as much a religion as any other in the world today. I haven't felt the need to create an entire website devoted to my beliefs and "debunking" the beliefs of others though, why have you felt the need to?
HHHmmm...do you need the comfort that comes from the affirmation from people with the same beliefs as you? Scared?

Well thank you for trying to open my eyes to the daily brainwashing that I receive as a chrisitian. You are most obviously much more loving, caring and concerned than the average person to want to enlighten us as well as warn others who may become ensnared in our carefully, historically woven web of lies and deceit....

However...each one of us is responsible for our own salvation/redemption(regardless of religion), so how about you spare us your rationalizing, and we'll spare you ours since it is pointless considering our very different beliefs.

Its amazing what comes up when you try and google a Bible verse these days...
oh well, interesting site to keep up on what people believe these days I guess.

Respectfully,

Ross said...

"Dude, you've committed your life to the POSSIBILITY that God DOESN'T exist! LOL, choose your arguments more carefully if you want to sound credible. "

And read more on this site to discover the error of your statement. It's not just a possibility, its the end result of a lifelong search.

"Its amazing what comes up when you try and google a Bible verse these days..."

I find it very comforting that we live in a world where one can search for bullshit and find a thorough debunking of it.

GearHedEd said...

cuddlz24 said (directed at atheists who allegedly congregate on sites like this for mutual support),

"...HHHmmm...do you need the comfort that comes from the affirmation from people with the same beliefs as you?"

That's the reason YOU'RE a Christian, hypocrite.

Chuck O'Connor said...

Science doesn't start out with possibilities. It starts out with a null hypothesis that can be falsified.

You don't understand science.

This blog exists to help those of us who used to think like you stop being ignorant and defensive.

cuddlz24 said...

Ross, glad you found the answers to the universe...but every man's opinions are subjective aren't they? One man's bullshit is another man's truth, and vice versa. One thing everyone of us can be sure of is that regardless of what we believe, we'll all find out what is true in the end.

Gearhead, good to see I can come comment on a site like this and be called names. Actually I receive comfort from a source that is much more reliable and objective than other christians themselves, after all they are fallible humans like everyone else. Therefore I am not a hypocrite, but thank you for judging me as such. I asked questions in my post, because I was curious to know the site owners answer. Thank you for responding on his behalf though.

Chuck, I apologize for speaking in laymans terms, I simply meant we can look at the possibility that something is occurring ie one might look at gravity, not knowing it as such and say there is a possibility that there are forces at work here that I don't know about or understand or see but they obviously exist because I'm not floating in the air or cruising outerspace right now. Obviously, then as you stated this could lead to a falsification or verification if one wanted to pursue an in depth study to come to a full understanding of that possibility. I also understand that science is study that is still, ultimately, the product of the fallible, imperfect human mind. An example and just an example from what I remember as a kid, (so no need to jump on me for my memories). When I was about 12 I was devouring books about the universe and dinosaurs etc... the earth was about 2 billion years old then. By the time I was into my teens, it was 4 billion years old. As a young adult it was 6 billion years old. Although I don't know how old it is claimed to be now, I know that in the time I aged about 12 years, the earth aged about 4 billion years. Science is everchanging and how or when can we ever be sure that we have arrived at THE absolute, final answer for sure. Does that make sense?

As for being ignorant, no more or less that the next person...

defensive yes, because I dislike that it seems that most in here have either had bad experiences with christians, or are simply commenting based on stereotypes. So sorry for that.

I cant speak for any one else but myself, but I've never thought I'm above or better than anyone else.

For the record, Chuck, your post was just as defensive as mine, as were all the rest directed at me.

I'm actually liking this website, this is the most dialogue I've had in a while! :)

Respectfully,

Chuck O'Connor said...

cudd,

I'm sorry if my post seemed defensive. My attitude wasn't. It was a mere fact.

You still have yet to demonstrate you understand how science works. You don't.

Science operates on probabilities born from normative standards that are then tested to defeat the conclusion.

Religion (especially Christianity) is driven by assertions that gain power through coercion, emotionalism and group-think.

You will find if you stay here that, unlike church, making an assertion will not automatically earn you agreement.

Science deals in what is probable based on our interaction with the natural world while religion (especially Christianity) deals with possibilities driven by an individual's relationship supernatural agency.

In religion, anything goes in science you have to earn your truth.

Also, if you are a Christian then you claim a relationship with the most powerful being in all of creation. Why get upset at those of us who find your religion silly? If your faith is true why don't you get more comfort from it? Why must you have our approval?

Lvka said...

wasting time (as in going to Church)


What makes you say that, Clare?

cuddlz24 said...

Chuck, thanks for your clarification.

Again, I have still not expressed myself well enough obviously, as I am not a scientist. I was interchanging possibility with probability I guess? I am not looking for any person's approval, I merely have found my interest and curiousity piqued by what I have read here today. No more, no less.

Also stating that any assertion I make in church will be of approved is just as silly. In addition if I was looking for agreement, trust me, I would have ignored this site and moved on in my search. I've always been interested in not only what others think, but why they think that way. I have neither blind faith in science which is fallible, nor blind faith in religion which is simply the work that fallible man thinks he can/has to do to obtain ultimate enlightenment/heaven etc....

When I used the word "dislike": ties in to what you stated about my level of comfort. I'm sad when I perceive (albeit wrongly here as I have seen), that others might not have the same peace in knowing the one person that defined himself as Being the Truth. It makes me uncomfortable to know that there may be many who disregard a Creator and reject Christ without a thorough study of the subject, or because of the bad example of a so-called christian. The Bible itself tells people "to test" what they hear for truth. It is my belief that the biblical God does not want blind faith that has no substance.

I believe in a creator because I live on a physical, tangible, verifiable, material earth. That's my starting point. Yes, I know that there is faith required to believe that we are here on purpose. But is there not as much required to believe that we're here by accident? This is an honest question. What do you think? Also as to Jesus, I also realize that by faith I believe that he is in fact who he claimed to be(rather than deluded or a liar). My belief came about and is reinforced by reading and study the Bible and works on both "sides" so to speak and has little to do with emotion and more to do with my own logical (note I say my own logic here:)) conclusions. If you knew me at all, you wouldn't even touch the group-think thing, but that's another post.


May I ask specifically whether you(and others that post here) think that we exist by accident(chance) or on purpose(by design)? And what made all of you choose one over the other?

PS I have never blogged before, so if this site is for atheists only, let me know (nicely haha).

Respectfully,

Chuck O'Connor said...

cudd,

I was raised Roman Catholic and was devout in that faith through my teens until I started questioning in my twenties which led to a spiritual seeking period and an acceptance of Jesus Christ as my Savior in my thirties where I was baptized in the Evangelical Faith and had various church leadership and missionary roles.

I lost my faith two years ago due to a few things. The problem of evil on a personal level, the obvious dishonesty of the Intelligent Design movement as exposed in the Dover case, hysteria by some church leaders over the Obama election, and the demonization of homosexuals and the abuse of their civil rights.

All of these things added up for me to doubt the doctrine of the Holy Spirit because I saw Christians believing no differently than other humans and in many ways much worse. I didn't see anything exceptional in the Christian community and that became a defeater to the assertion that god lived within the Christian in the person of the Holy Spirit.

This led me to start seeking again towards what is authentic and I discovered what I believed to be valid history in the bible (what you assert as Jesus' words) is more probably myth constructed for specific theological purposes during specific historical times.

Your question regarding chance is evidence of the kind of confused thinking christianity engenders. It is a black and white fallacy. My life can have meaning and purpose and design as I make it devoid of external agency. I operate within the constraints of metaphysical naturalism and do not add invisible presuppositions to my reality or morality.

I find owning my actions devoid of concepts of sin or atonement or repentance demands that I am accountable as a moral agent and must take responsibility for what I do.

I also feel sane when I do this.

What about you? Why do you feel the need construct a relationship with a character in a book as a means to giving your life purpose?

Gandolf said...

cuddlz24 said... "Dude, you've committed your life to the POSSIBILITY that God DOESN'T exist! LOL, choose your arguments more carefully if you want to sound credible. "

Cuddlz do think alittle bit more, before you go throwing shit into a fan.It "probably" most often gets far too messy.

The idea of gravity is more like a "probability" rather than only a possibility dont you think.We ALL do see things falling lots of the time.Many flu vacines "probably" do work because ALL people can actually freely observe the benefit when the sick obviously do become well again after taking them,and they passed the (mere posibility) stage way back when they were only testing and trialing them.And im sure even you when being a little more honest! do realize, science "probably" does actually work, for if it was only still all at the possible stage there would be many things you use in your life that you wouldnt dare use,if it were still only at the trial stage.

Like should you get raped,would you be questioning the ability of science and gene technology the law might try to use, to help determining who was probably your rapist.

See the thing is Cuddlz strangely humans managed to track down gravity,flu vacines,gene technology and so very many other things which you and your holy roller faith mates will all often willfully and gladly use, quite often without even giving it a second thought!,so strong! is your "honest faith" in the "probabilities" of our sciences.

Yet in thousands of years now, humans are only finding less and less evidence for Gods making them if anything,only more and more "improbable".

And when you and other faithful get cancer, most holy rollers these days "WILL PROBABLY" turn to science and its cures! and meds!, as most HONESTLY thats where their faith actually lay the most,not so much anymore in being hopefully cured by the gods and prayer etc.

And yet like throwing shit at a fan, here you are trying to suggest you "honestly" do place science only at a possible level, along with all the ideas of the many possible Gods.

You bring up the situation that science changes its mind on many matters,like as if maybe we should be seeing that as some sort of disability and downfall? ..Crikey Cuddlz ..If only!! faith could learn some more of this type of "honesty", to be more ever ready to "simply accept" when being found to be "probably" wrong.And yet here you are throwing shit at the fan, like you feel we should be seeing this honesty as some type of real disgrace and downfall?.I just dont understand that type thinking.

Does bigoted unrelenting pride rate far more highly in your mind Cuddlz? ...Because that the atittude what kept the Pope just moving child molestors onward too!, isnt it Cuddlz.That lack of any ability to be a little "honest" and simply relent like science, and simply admit and accept to making some mistakes.Faith very often just cannot do that can it Cuddlz?

Cuddlz when people use flu vaxcines we observe an improvement.When people use asprin we observe they lose their headache.When people use toothpaste we observe they get less dental work and fillings etc.When people with servere overweight problems have gastric bypass,we observe their weight often imporoves.

Yet when people use faith and belief in their Gods we most often dont observe any real honest improvement.Infact quite often! it honestly does seem we most "probably" do even observe a type terrible disease setting in, that makes the person unhealthy and unable to even be a little honest about matters.

No i think you are wrong about John.John bases his thoughts on whats VERY OFTEN being "observed" as being most "probable".

However im sure John like the scientists, is still ever ready to be honest! and change! his opinion should some different observible evidence happen to arrive.

Gandolf said...

Cuddlz said..."It makes me uncomfortable to know that there may be many who disregard a Creator and reject Christ without a thorough study of the subject, or because of the bad example of a so-called christian. The Bible itself tells people "to test" what they hear for truth. It is my belief that the biblical God does not want blind faith that has no substance."

Well then if Gods dont want blind faith,then what is the best test for deciding if a God asprin honestly works?.

Try it yourself and study and observe its honest effect and possibility of benefit on yourself and heaps of other folks too?.

Or simply keep reading and reading and reading all the details and endless confusing directions written on all the many pamphlets and packet?.Reading more and more and more.Trying taking it different ways,only finding it obviously only has much the same effects.

While at the same time also blindly dismissing! the observable fact!, its also become quite obvious over time that next to nobody else, ever seems to really honestly ever recieve any "real" benefit, from swallowing this God aspin pill either.And observe it often actually tends to make people ill and even sicker

The study and trial period has lasted thousands of years already now Cuddlz!.

The verdict needs to happen sometime.

Or else all we will ever have is blind faith.

Gandolf said...

Cuddlz said.."because of the bad example of a so-called christian"

You should go into marketing.With that type of thinking you could likely sell most anything.Even any obvious flops.

You could suggest...Look dont go allowing yourself be turned off this extremely fine product ...Just because you might happen to observe quite a very high majority not seeming to be really honestly benefitting from it.

These people are all just bad examples !

Gandolf said...

And Cuddlz ...If somebody said ...Oh but i dont really feel any better off and look those people over there swalowing this God pill dont honestly really seem any better off either..Infact i think its making matters worse.

Like folks of faith often do ..You could simply turn the God pill package over, and quickly point to the "written directions"...And point out to this questioning person ..

Loook here sonny ! ..Didnt you read the directions properly!? ...It states right here in the writing! ...You should likely "not" really feel any "honest" benefits! ..and infact this God pill might even tend to make many who swallow it feel worse and some might even turn into self rightous bigots!.

You could then say ...See sunshine, its actually working just fine !.

Now sunshine quickly run off! and just remember! ta keep taking your God meds and keep being a great moonbeam for Jesus ..Theres a good boy

zenmite said...

I don't know how old you are cudz, but when I was in elementary school the science books I read gave the age of the earth as between 3 and 5 billion years old. I'm 51. The science books I consult now also give the earth's age as around 4.5 billion years. I think you may be confusing this with the estimated age of the universe, which is much harder to determine. That has varied quiet a bit over the years but has never been claimed as a certainty by any physicist I'm aware of.

Are we here by accident or on purpose? Both of these require the idea of intention...as in "I meant to create the universe" or "whoops, I accidentally created a universe." Without a creator standing above it all the question makes no sense.

Just remember the fallible human mind that you say created science and religion is the same fallible mind you have used to come to the conclusion that god is real, jesus is his son and the bible is true. If I decide not to trust human reason because it is limited or faulty but to instead place my trust in some omnipotent diety...the very mind that decides to trust in god or the bible is also fallible and limited. Therefore your choice to accept jesus and believe in god is also subject to error based upon your own reasoning.

Bronxboy47 said...

Zenmite,

First they denounce human reasoning as degenerate, then they turn around and use that very same reasoning to defend the bible and its monstrous God. If it wasn't so sad, it would really be funny.

This warning observation of yours is so crucial to the understanding of what takes place when a believer decides to accept the claims of the bible as true and trustworthy, I hope you won't mind me posting it again for added emphasis.

Just remember the fallible human mind that you say created science and religion is the same fallible mind you have used to come to the conclusion that god is real, jesus is his son and the bible is true. If I decide not to trust human reason because it is limited or faulty but to instead place my trust in some omnipotent deity...the very mind that decides to trust in god or the bible is also fallible and limited. Therefore your choice to accept jesus and believe in god is also subject to error based upon your own reasoning.

GearHedEd said...

cuddlz said,

"...and atheism is as much a religion as any other in the world today."

Nope. Not a religion. We atheists have been accused of a number of other things that aren't true either, so don't feel bad that you got this part wrong, too.

Atheists have:

--no commonly held beliefs
--no rituals
--no gathering places
--no dogma
--no worship (we've been accused of devil worship if we don't worship God)
--no recognized leaders (although there are some people like John Loftus, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, etc., who seem to collect what it means to be an atheist or agnostic in one place and publish it.)

Your first post seemed glib and just a little hostile, despite the "respectfully" at the end.

Pardon me if I took it that way and responded in less than a cordial manner.

Saint Brian the Godless said...

Although I don't know how old it is claimed to be now, I know that in the time I aged about 12 years, the earth aged about 4 billion years. Science is everchanging and how or when can we ever be sure that we have arrived at THE absolute, final answer for sure. Does that make sense?
-----------------
Science doesn't cling to old data out of pride like people do. It changes. You saw it change as it got more accurate information and took it as science being somehow inaccurate because it changed. Your religion doesn't change much so you think it must have the absolute, final answers. Um, nope. That would be because your religion cannot change, cannot accept the future and relinquish the past. Science changes because there are no 'absolute final answers for sure,' at least not yet, and anyone that tells you that there are is trying to sell you something. This doesn't mean that huge things like evolution will someday be proven wrong, btw. It only means that big things like evolution will someday, due to more data coming in, be modified to best fit reality. When a theory changes they don't just throw it out you know. The new explanation ABSOLUTELY HAS TO also explain all the data that the old one did, and do so better, or science will not change.
Plus, as to the age of the earth, as a kid (I'm 49 now) I learned that it was about five to six billion years old. However, it varied depending on who you were listening to at the time, since we didn't have nearly the hard data that we do today. It's definitely more accurate today, although of course not the exact precise ultimate 'right' answer. But close is good enough for now.

Every single time science has come up with something that disproves anything about religion, the religion fights it tooth and nail, even for centuries sometimes, only to in the end finally admit that it was wrong, but again, only when FORCED TO by looking incredibly stupid. If it were up to religion we'd have no science at all, juat a bunch of wive's tales and superstitions and religious dogma to go by. If it were up to religion we'd all be still be trying to pray away heart disease instead of treaating it. If it were up to religion we'd never have progressed beyond the primitive agricultural stage.
Science means 'to know' and so religion is antiscience, anti-knowing. It is orchestrated ignorance, for the purpose of controlling the people, and little more.

Ross said...

I'm a bit late to reply to this, but wanted to anyway, so if this was covered, sorry.

"Ross, glad you found the answers to the universe...."

I was speaking in reference to John's atheism. It isn't just one option of many thrown into a list that he arbitrarily picked. He, like many atheists here, tried his best to objectively find the truth, and even though he wanted God to be that truth, the evidence pointed in the opposite direction. It wasn't his choice, it was what he discovered. That's what I meant by "conclusion of a lifelong search". He didn't choose atheism because he preferred it, he concluded it because given what he found, he felt he must.


"but every man's opinions are subjective aren't they? One man's bullshit is another man's truth, and vice versa."

Truth is truth is truth. Either something is true or something is not true. One man's truth is all man's truth, whether one chooses to acknowledge it or not. What you're talking about is an opinion, conveniently confused with a fact. It's my opinion that Lambroghinis (sp?) are better than Ferrarris (sp?). That's subjective. It's a fact that Ferrarri's fastest car is faster and more powerful than Lambroghini's fastest and most powerful car. That's objective (and contrary to my preference, by the way). There's a difference there.

"One thing everyone of us can be sure of is that regardless of what we believe, we'll all find out what is true in the end."

That statement is false. If there are no gods (Roman/Greek/Babylonian/Jewish/Christian/etc) and no afterlife - which I believe to be the case - we in fact will NOT find out what is true in the end. Our consciousness will end, and we will be in the same state as we were before we were conceived: unconscious and unaware of it.


I threw in that annoying word, "believe", which I define as "what I have concluded to be true". This is different from "what is true", and far different from "what I wish to be true". Since we cannot know everything for 100% certainty (see http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2010/06/on-being-ignorant-of-ones-own-ignorance.html) we are stuck with this suboptimal "belief". Note as well that belief does not equal faith. Faith is belief without reason. I strive to obtain belief with reason. This is why I believe that there are no gods.

Would I prefer it to be true that there is a kind and loving god that will supply me with an afterlife in which I can again see all of my friends and family that have died, and where I can live happily forever without fear of pain or death? Of course! I could choose to have faith that that is true, to believe without reason that it is true. Or, I could use my reason to come to the inevitable, unattractive, and unfortunate truth that such a god and such an afterlife do not exist.


To answer a later PS: This site is of course NOT only for atheists. It is for everyone to discuss atheism and religion in as rational and civilized a manner which a blog commenting system can allow. The hope is that people who are on the fence can come here for answers, or that people who have crossed the fence can see what others have done in their situations. In other words, the point is education. We all learn from each other. Just don't be annoying like DM.