I am an atheist who wants to believe in Christ

Bluerose31

Christian Flower
Supporter
Mar 27, 2017
4,310
6,638
36
US
✟419,338.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I'm a 32-year-old guy who spent roughly 32 years as an atheist. And not just any atheist.... for most of this time (especially in my teens!) I was the very obnoxious kind, the one who read Dawkins and Hitchens and took delight in trolling boards like this very own with the same old arguments I'm sure you've all seen a thousand times before.

But now? Now I find myself.... extremely confused and more than a little terrified. The proximate cause was a series of books I read over the last couple months: The (extremely profane) novels of Michel Houellebecq which first began cementing in my mind the emptiness and hopelessness of the atheist/materialist mindset, and this was shortly followed (by pure chance!) with Elizabeth Prentiss's Stepping Heavenward, which expounded on the benefits and comforts of Christianity in a way I hadn't ever experienced before. And it was shortly after that I read the big--and more common!--one: CS Lewis's Mere Christianity. For the first time, the world began to make sense: what before seemed full of chaos and despair suddenly became orderly and hopeful. For the first time in my life I have begun reading the Bible with an open mind and an open heart.

And.....that's where I am at now. (This has all been very, very sudden.) I am in the position of the man who oh so desperately wishes to believe in Christ, but whose lifelong background in "rationalism" is making such a conversion very, very hard.

(This was all copied form the Introduction thread--sorry! This next part is new though!)

I suppose I will zero in on the current specific issues I am having, though I urge you to consider this within the wider context of my biography:


One part of Lewis that hit me especially hard was the section on Christian marriage. Specifically, the realization that the Vow to "love" one another isn't describing the "feeling" of love--it's describing the decision to love, the active choice every single day to value and respect your spouse and your family. (Indeed, we can't promise to always experience the feeling of love towards our spouse, no more than we can promise to never have a the feeling of a headache.)

And... up until recently, I've always understood Faith to be a "feeling." That Christians do not make the active decision to (I will phrase this very delicately, as I do not mean to offend) set their traditional reasoning abilities aside and accept Christ into their hearts; rather, it's a "feeling" they have, a "feeling" that Christ is with them and wants them to accept Him.

Which one is closer to how actual Christians feel?

(Perhaps a specific example will clear things up: in Mere Christianity, CS Lewis employs his famous "Lord, Liar or Lunatic" argument to explain why he believes that Christ was literally the Son of God. Now, when I read that, I find his argument to be logically unsound--poor, and unconvincing. However, of course, to be a Christian (which, again, is something I desperately want) I would need to get past these mental roadblocks. Can I just say "No, I will make the decision to ignore these misgivings, and accept Christ on faith" or is this terrible theology (and worse psychology)? And if that's not the answer....then what is?

So: How can I get past this? How can I get to Christ from my current miserable state?
That is beautiful that you want to come to Christ. He wants to welcome you with open arms. He loves you a lot. I will pray that Jesus comes into your heart and heals you and shows you how to be a disciple of his.
 
Upvote 0

lee11

Active Member
Nov 10, 2017
114
39
34
melbourne
✟34,951.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I'm a 32-year-old guy who spent roughly 32 years as an atheist. And not just any atheist.... for most of this time (especially in my teens!) I was the very obnoxious kind, the one who read Dawkins and Hitchens and took delight in trolling boards like this very own with the same old arguments I'm sure you've all seen a thousand times before.

But now? Now I find myself.... extremely confused and more than a little terrified. The proximate cause was a series of books I read over the last couple months: The (extremely profane) novels of Michel Houellebecq which first began cementing in my mind the emptiness and hopelessness of the atheist/materialist mindset, and this was shortly followed (by pure chance!) with Elizabeth Prentiss's Stepping Heavenward, which expounded on the benefits and comforts of Christianity in a way I hadn't ever experienced before. And it was shortly after that I read the big--and more common!--one: CS Lewis's Mere Christianity. For the first time, the world began to make sense: what before seemed full of chaos and despair suddenly became orderly and hopeful. For the first time in my life I have begun reading the Bible with an open mind and an open heart.

And.....that's where I am at now. (This has all been very, very sudden.) I am in the position of the man who oh so desperately wishes to believe in Christ, but whose lifelong background in "rationalism" is making such a conversion very, very hard.

(This was all copied form the Introduction thread--sorry! This next part is new though!)

I suppose I will zero in on the current specific issues I am having, though I urge you to consider this within the wider context of my biography:


One part of Lewis that hit me especially hard was the section on Christian marriage. Specifically, the realization that the Vow to "love" one another isn't describing the "feeling" of love--it's describing the decision to love, the active choice every single day to value and respect your spouse and your family. (Indeed, we can't promise to always experience the feeling of love towards our spouse, no more than we can promise to never have a the feeling of a headache.)

And... up until recently, I've always understood Faith to be a "feeling." That Christians do not make the active decision to (I will phrase this very delicately, as I do not mean to offend) set their traditional reasoning abilities aside and accept Christ into their hearts; rather, it's a "feeling" they have, a "feeling" that Christ is with them and wants them to accept Him.

Which one is closer to how actual Christians feel?

(Perhaps a specific example will clear things up: in Mere Christianity, CS Lewis employs his famous "Lord, Liar or Lunatic" argument to explain why he believes that Christ was literally the Son of God. Now, when I read that, I find his argument to be logically unsound--poor, and unconvincing. However, of course, to be a Christian (which, again, is something I desperately want) I would need to get past these mental roadblocks. Can I just say "No, I will make the decision to ignore these misgivings, and accept Christ on faith" or is this terrible theology (and worse psychology)? And if that's not the answer....then what is?

So: How can I get past this? How can I get to Christ from my current miserable state?

Hi

Paul the apostle said 1 person plants and another person waters, but it is God who gives the seed increase.

Another words God may use many resources to plant the seed of the the good news in your life, and then continue to use many resources to water or give you understanding about the seed that was planted.

That it may grow and that will happen through out your life, and the increase that God provides is when the seed is ready to be harvested or you are ready to make a decsion to receive salvation and Jesus as your Lord and Saviour.

So this seed will continue to be watered and feed until you are ready to receive Jesus, as your Lord and Saviour and when you are ready to receive Jesus you will become a believer and a Christian.

The bible says you will be transferred out of the kingdom of darkness and into the kingdom of light.

So may God bless you with an unconditional, forgiving, merciful, and compassionate heart full of wisdom and kindness to win your family and friends to Jesus as you continue on with your journey.

Peace.
 
Upvote 0

ldonjohn

Active Member
Sep 20, 2013
348
178
✟81,177.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Davoarid, I don't know if my testimony of how I came to be a "believer" would be of any help or not, but below is a link if you care to read it. I'll just say here that although I grew up in church, by the time I was in my late teens I wasn't sure if the bible was true or if God was real. Like you I wanted to "believe" but I did not know how to do that. I thought I would NEVER know what "believe in Jesus" really means.

My testimony

John
 
Upvote 0

AvgJoe

Member since 2005
Supporter
Feb 5, 2005
2,748
1,099
Texas
✟332,516.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
For the first time in my life I have begun reading the Bible with an open mind and an open heart.

I am in the position of the man who oh so desperately wishes to believe in Christ, but whose lifelong background in "rationalism" is making such a conversion very, very hard.

It's good to hear that you've made the decision to read the Bible. The Bible is the Word of God. If the Bible is true, then Christianity is true and the God described within it's pages is real, is Who He says He is and can be trusted. Have you looked into the validity of the Bible? The following will help you do just that.

There are many testaments to the validity of the Scriptures. The unity of the Scriptures is one such testament. The Bible was written over a period of 1,600 years, by 40 God chosen men, who lived on multiple continents and they all wrote about the same thing, man's sin and his need for a savior, Jesus Christ. There were no mail delivery trucks, no drop ship planes, no Federal Express, no UPS and no email, yet when all of the writings were put together they present one unified message. The Bible is truly the Word of God.

Following are many other areas that attest to the validity of the Scriptures.

An excellent ebook on the subject: http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/e-books_pdf/idobi.pdf

Proof of Textual Evidence
Old Testament: The Dead Sea Scrolls and Biblical Integrity
New Testament: Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability | CARM Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry
More on the Bible: The Bible | CARM Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry
Is the Bible reliable?


Proof of People Living at the Time of Christ
Non biblical accounts of New Testament events and/or people | CARM Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry
The writings of Josephus mention many biblical people and places | CARM Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry

Proof of Archaeology
Archaeology and the Bible • ChristianAnswers.Net
Biblical Archeology
Archaeological evidence verifying biblical cities | CARM Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry

Proof of Science
Statements Consistent With Paleontology, Astronomy, Meteorology, Biology, Anthropology, Hydrology & Geology, that were made 1,000s of years before science discovered them.
Science and the Bible
Scientific Accuracies of the Bible | CARM Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry
Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge

Proof of Prophecy (Messanic & dealing with nations)
Messianic Prophecies
Fulfilled Bible Prophecy Dealing With Nations
Prophecy, the Bible and Jesus | CARM Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry
http://shoreshdavidbrandon.org/pdf/I-Have-A-Friend-Whose-Jewish.pdf (pages 11 & 12 - awesome eBook)
How Do You Know The Bible Is True?
 
Upvote 0

Danishkirmani

Member
Mar 17, 2018
22
9
32
Bangalore
✟860.00
Country
India
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Single
I'm a 32-year-old guy who spent roughly 32 years as an atheist. And not just any atheist.... for most of this time (especially in my teens!) I was the very obnoxious kind, the one who read Dawkins and Hitchens and took delight in trolling boards like this very own with the same old arguments I'm sure you've all seen a thousand times before.

But now? Now I find myself.... extremely confused and more than a little terrified. The proximate cause was a series of books I read over the last couple months: The (extremely profane) novels of Michel Houellebecq which first began cementing in my mind the emptiness and hopelessness of the atheist/materialist mindset, and this was shortly followed (by pure chance!) with Elizabeth Prentiss's Stepping Heavenward, which expounded on the benefits and comforts of Christianity in a way I hadn't ever experienced before. And it was shortly after that I read the big--and more common!--one: CS Lewis's Mere Christianity. For the first time, the world began to make sense: what before seemed full of chaos and despair suddenly became orderly and hopeful. For the first time in my life I have begun reading the Bible with an open mind and an open heart.

And.....that's where I am at now. (This has all been very, very sudden.) I am in the position of the man who oh so desperately wishes to believe in Christ, but whose lifelong background in "rationalism" is making such a conversion very, very hard.

(This was all copied form the Introduction thread--sorry! This next part is new though!)

I suppose I will zero in on the current specific issues I am having, though I urge you to consider this within the wider context of my biography:


One part of Lewis that hit me especially hard was the section on Christian marriage. Specifically, the realization that the Vow to "love" one another isn't describing the "feeling" of love--it's describing the decision to love, the active choice every single day to value and respect your spouse and your family. (Indeed, we can't promise to always experience the feeling of love towards our spouse, no more than we can promise to never have a the feeling of a headache.)

And... up until recently, I've always understood Faith to be a "feeling." That Christians do not make the active decision to (I will phrase this very delicately, as I do not mean to offend) set their traditional reasoning abilities aside and accept Christ into their hearts; rather, it's a "feeling" they have, a "feeling" that Christ is with them and wants them to accept Him.

Which one is closer to how actual Christians feel?

(Perhaps a specific example will clear things up: in Mere Christianity, CS Lewis employs his famous "Lord, Liar or Lunatic" argument to explain why he believes that Christ was literally the Son of God. Now, when I read that, I find his argument to be logically unsound--poor, and unconvincing. However, of course, to be a Christian (which, again, is something I desperately want) I would need to get past these mental roadblocks. Can I just say "No, I will make the decision to ignore these misgivings, and accept Christ on faith" or is this terrible theology (and worse psychology)? And if that's not the answer....then what is?

So: How can I get past this? How can I get to Christ from my current miserable state?
Faith must be followed by reasonable conclusion & not blind following. Otherwise it will be as good as believing in Santa !! You need to research all religions honestly from the people who follow the religion & then arrive at final decision. I'm sure if you are honest you will arrive at the right decision !!
 
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
If you found "mere christianity" thought provoking, it is also worth reading such as Chesterton several books eg "orthodoxy" who makes profound observations on how the world leads him to christianity, and ultimately catholicism.

As a scientist -one time quantum physicist I have nothing but contempt for such as Dawkins - he goes way beyond his sphere of understanding, into such as quantum chemistry, and his arguments are often hopelessly flawed by his own misunderstanding but by aiming his conclusions at "the public" he knows few can challenge him, so he can present his a priori world view as though it was the verdict of science.. The problem is the hall of science presumes that the world is deterministic:, that is , progresses only because of present state and laws ( which even science disagrees with!) , and that consciousness is a chemical process, and life is a chemical accident then filters all it sees with that paradigm. It then guards what it "allows in" by whether it conforms to the paradigm.

You only have to see how Dawkins reacts to (for example) slamdunk evidence on telepathy (which incidentally is beyond reasonable doubt, the question is how, not whether) - he apriori tries to debunk it, without even arguing on the evidence. Because It doesnt fit his worldview. And that is the antithesis of science.

Consider the following: about philosophy of science.

Start with what I call sagans folly. "extra ordinary claims need extraordinary evidence" which is a rallying cry of scientific relativism and atheism. It is also the antithesis of science, because the word "extraordinary" is totally subjective and is used as a bar to raise against evidence that does not fit your world view. The truth is an experimental correlation exists or it does not. You can aim to eliminate variables but in the end however extraordinary it is , and whether or not you can "explain it" more of that word later - it exists.. The evidence stands either in conformity or defiance of your world view.

That leads on to what is science anyway? And the answer can only be, it is a model of patterns that are observed to repeat or are repeatable in the universe, and a process for adding to that model. In essence nothing is ever "explained" except in the context of that model.
But the model is not the same as the universe. So what is an electron? the answer is an elegant bit of math, that helps with matching pattersn of observation. Indeed go deepeer and you find there are several models of electrons. The classical actually disagree with the quantum, and you have to know which to use. Hawking admitted this in one of his last books with the concept of "model dependent reality" which concluded that there was no unique model (and thereofer theory of everything) - that several contradictory models existed for phenomena, and you had to know which to use!
In saying he destroyed the idea that the models are explanation of the universe, only how it behaves.
He dealt a blow to the "paradigm".

Quantum physics deals a blow to the idea of a deterministic universe anyway. Concluding "it does not exist till observed" and the philosophical problems with that are profound. A killer blow to the paradigm.
A leading british quantum physicist said it was an embarassment, that quantum physics still had no rational explanation or indeed consensus on such as copenhagen interpretation (of whcih einstein said "I refuse to believe the moon does not exist till I look at it" but even he was forced to conclude that was true/

Dawkins will say "i will believe it when I see peer reviewed repeats" knowing that
1/ Journals are limited in wht they allow in.
2/ The peers are like him, who will not allow in what they disagree with
3/ YOu cannot get funding for repeats, and even if you do, no journal will ever publish a repeat!
Point is...no "real science" passes the test that he gives things he does not like. Particularly 3! So Dawkinsian establishment keeps out all it does not like!
Hence he can ignore (eg telepathy) since he manages to keep it out.

Of course the way out of the mess of scienctists own creation is simple.
For as long as you accept that science is only a model. It explains nothing except likely observation but has little to say about what the world is, only what it does, all the philosophical problems disappear.
But then the "god of the gaps" argument dies with it.
There is then NO explaination for the world. And neither has science challenged God.

And the more I saw of deep sceince, the more I concluded that was true.

Now look at some of the fascinating forensic evidence. Like... the forensics of eucharistic miracles, and you start to wonder.. See white cells that should not exist in Vitro, that Darwin says prove his own theory is false! Life from inert, not from small change.....







I'm a 32-year-old guy who spent roughly 32 years as an atheist. And not just any atheist.... for most of this time (especially in my teens!) I was the very obnoxious kind, the one who read Dawkins and Hitchens and took delight in trolling boards like this very own with the same old arguments I'm sure you've all seen a thousand times before.

But now? Now I find myself.... extremely confused and more than a little terrified. The proximate cause was a series of books I read over the last couple months: The (extremely profane) novels of Michel Houellebecq which first began cementing in my mind the emptiness and hopelessness of the atheist/materialist mindset, and this was shortly followed (by pure chance!) with Elizabeth Prentiss's Stepping Heavenward, which expounded on the benefits and comforts of Christianity in a way I hadn't ever experienced before. And it was shortly after that I read the big--and more common!--one: CS Lewis's Mere Christianity. For the first time, the world began to make sense: what before seemed full of chaos and despair suddenly became orderly and hopeful. For the first time in my life I have begun reading the Bible with an open mind and an open heart.

And.....that's where I am at now. (This has all been very, very sudden.) I am in the position of the man who oh so desperately wishes to believe in Christ, but whose lifelong background in "rationalism" is making such a conversion very, very hard.

(This was all copied form the Introduction thread--sorry! This next part is new though!)

I suppose I will zero in on the current specific issues I am having, though I urge you to consider this within the wider context of my biography:


One part of Lewis that hit me especially hard was the section on Christian marriage. Specifically, the realization that the Vow to "love" one another isn't describing the "feeling" of love--it's describing the decision to love, the active choice every single day to value and respect your spouse and your family. (Indeed, we can't promise to always experience the feeling of love towards our spouse, no more than we can promise to never have a the feeling of a headache.)

And... up until recently, I've always understood Faith to be a "feeling." That Christians do not make the active decision to (I will phrase this very delicately, as I do not mean to offend) set their traditional reasoning abilities aside and accept Christ into their hearts; rather, it's a "feeling" they have, a "feeling" that Christ is with them and wants them to accept Him.

Which one is closer to how actual Christians feel?

(Perhaps a specific example will clear things up: in Mere Christianity, CS Lewis employs his famous "Lord, Liar or Lunatic" argument to explain why he believes that Christ was literally the Son of God. Now, when I read that, I find his argument to be logically unsound--poor, and unconvincing. However, of course, to be a Christian (which, again, is something I desperately want) I would need to get past these mental roadblocks. Can I just say "No, I will make the decision to ignore these misgivings, and accept Christ on faith" or is this terrible theology (and worse psychology)? And if that's not the answer....then what is?

So: How can I get past this? How can I get to Christ from my current miserable state?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

DennisTate

Newbie
Supporter
Mar 31, 2012
10,742
1,664
Nova Scotia, Canada
Visit site
✟379,864.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
I'm a 32-year-old guy who spent roughly 32 years as an atheist. And not just any atheist.... for most of this time (especially in my teens!) I was the very obnoxious kind, the one who read Dawkins and Hitchens and took delight in trolling boards like this very own with the same old arguments I'm sure you've all seen a thousand times before.

But now? Now I find myself.... extremely confused and more than a little terrified. The proximate cause was a series of books I read over the last couple months: The (extremely profane) novels of Michel Houellebecq which first began cementing in my mind the emptiness and hopelessness of the atheist/materialist mindset, and this was shortly followed (by pure chance!) with Elizabeth Prentiss's Stepping Heavenward, which expounded on the benefits and comforts of Christianity in a way I hadn't ever experienced before. And it was shortly after that I read the big--and more common!--one: CS Lewis's Mere Christianity. For the first time, the world began to make sense: what before seemed full of chaos and despair suddenly became orderly and hopeful. For the first time in my life I have begun reading the Bible with an open mind and an open heart.

And.....that's where I am at now. (This has all been very, very sudden.) I am in the position of the man who oh so desperately wishes to believe in Christ, but whose lifelong background in "rationalism" is making such a conversion very, very hard.

(This was all copied form the Introduction thread--sorry! This next part is new though!)

I suppose I will zero in on the current specific issues I am having, though I urge you to consider this within the wider context of my biography:


One part of Lewis that hit me especially hard was the section on Christian marriage. Specifically, the realization that the Vow to "love" one another isn't describing the "feeling" of love--it's describing the decision to love, the active choice every single day to value and respect your spouse and your family. (Indeed, we can't promise to always experience the feeling of love towards our spouse, no more than we can promise to never have a the feeling of a headache.)

And... up until recently, I've always understood Faith to be a "feeling." That Christians do not make the active decision to (I will phrase this very delicately, as I do not mean to offend) set their traditional reasoning abilities aside and accept Christ into their hearts; rather, it's a "feeling" they have, a "feeling" that Christ is with them and wants them to accept Him.

Which one is closer to how actual Christians feel?

(Perhaps a specific example will clear things up: in Mere Christianity, CS Lewis employs his famous "Lord, Liar or Lunatic" argument to explain why he believes that Christ was literally the Son of God. Now, when I read that, I find his argument to be logically unsound--poor, and unconvincing. However, of course, to be a Christian (which, again, is something I desperately want) I would need to get past these mental roadblocks. Can I just say "No, I will make the decision to ignore these misgivings, and accept Christ on faith" or is this terrible theology (and worse psychology)? And if that's not the answer....then what is?

So: How can I get past this? How can I get to Christ from my current miserable state?

I may have met you on some of those discussion forums......

I suspect that you may really enjoy and be inspired by the explanation for something along the line of the Cyclic Model of the Universe as shown to near death experiencer and Atheist Mellen Thomas Benedict:

Mellen Benedict, near-death .com:
I was in pre creation, before the Big Bang. I had crossed over the beginning of time / the First Word/the First vibration. I was in the Eye of Creation. I felt as if I was touching the Face of God. It was not a religious feeling. Simply I was at one with Absolute Life and Consciousness. When I say that I could see or perceive forever, I mean that I could experience all of creation generating itself. It was without beginning and without end. That’s a mind-expanding thought, isn’t it? Scientists perceive the Big Bang as a single event that created the Universe. I saw during my life after death experience that the Big Bang is only one of an infinite number of Big Bangs creating Universes endlessly and simultaneously. The only images that even come close in human terms would be those created by super computers using fractal geometry equations.

The ancients knew of this. They said God had periodically created new Universes by breathing out, and recreated other Universes by breathing in. These epochs were called Yugas. Modern science called this the Big Bang. I was in absolute, pure consciousness. I could see or perceive all the Big Bangs or Yugas creating and recreating themselves. Instantly I entered into them all simultaneously. I saw that each and every little piece of creation has the power to create. It is very difficult to try to explain this. I am still speechless about this.

It took me years after I returned from my near-death experience to assimilate any words at all for the Void experience. I can tell you this now: the Void is less than nothing, yet more than everything that is! The Void is absolute zero; chaos forming all possibilities. It is Absolute Consciousness; much more than even Universal Intelligence. The Void is the vacuum or nothingness between all physical manifestations. The SPACE between atoms and their components. Modern science has begun to study this space between everything. They call it Zero point. Whenever they try to measure it, their instruments go off the scale, or to infinity, so to speak. They have no way, as of yet, to measure infinity accurately. There is more of the zero space in your own body and the Universe than anything else!
 
Upvote 0

DennisTate

Newbie
Supporter
Mar 31, 2012
10,742
1,664
Nova Scotia, Canada
Visit site
✟379,864.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Here is a discussion that I began that I think may be of interest to you.

I am of the belief that G-d ... in a sense learned or evolved over eternity in the past.... whereas Adam and Eve were created somewhere around six or seven thousand years ago.......
but before that.... Covering Cherub Lucifer went off into rebellion.....
and pretty much blew up a large portion of the universe / Multiverse.

Adam and Eve so quickly facing Satan after their creation......
has huge philosophical implications......

Where did Intelligence begin, in matter or fundamental energy?
 
Upvote 0