Why Are We “Evaluating Christianity?”
I consider myself an atheist and a skeptic. I care whether my beliefs are true or false. I believe I have good reasons for being an atheist, and that those reasons can stand up to the scrutiny of Christian apologetics. But – as Christians are so often fond of saying – what if I’m wrong? So this blog represents my effort to take Christianity seriously; to engage with the best Christians have to offer and see how my general Case for Atheism stacks up by comparison.
I deliberately chose a gerund as the name for this blog; I view this as a process, and not an end goal. If you’re a Christian, my goal is not to “convert you to atheism;” my goal is to engage with, understand, and evaluate the best arguments you have for what you believe and see how that affects what I believe. At the end of the day, all I hope is that you will come away with a bit more understanding of (and hopefully, respect for) what makes someone an atheist.
The inspiration for this blog comes from Arguing With Atheism, in which the author – a self-described “skeptical Christian” – emphasizes the importance of engaging with arguments for atheism, taking them seriously, and seeing if his Christian beliefs stand up to atheist critiques. Unfortunately, the author of that blog is currently working on his thesis, and won’t be updating it for a while, so I figured I would take up the challenge from the other side.
You can email me at evaluatingchristianity@gmail.com.
Evaluating Christianity 
Mr. Atheist said,
June 23, 2009 at 12:56 am
Awesome and thank you. I am with you all the way. I seek truth. I try and engage those of the christian faith (as I used to be one myself). Not so much to “convert” but to engage and seek answers, understanding….
Keep up the great work. It is good to know I am not alone.
kontaktne leæe said,
June 3, 2011 at 6:11 am
Heya pretty nice web site man, wonderful, everything is good layout articles, i’ll bookmark and subscribe for the feeds!
Christian thinker said,
November 21, 2011 at 11:43 pm
I am a Christian myself and I want to say I commend you on how you have set this up I love logic philosophy etc but I hate when either side atheist or religious result to petty mudslinging and think the other person is dumb
Nicelle said,
December 14, 2013 at 2:24 am
Many great atrocities have been committed in the name of religion. However, one cannot deny the fact that great emotional changes take place when there is a real sense of spirituality. Scientists have proven that spiritual people live healthier, longer lives. I have seen many people leaving religion, only to become cynical, unhappy people. Societies with a high level of spirituality are happier, more peaceful and prosperous. The real question is this: why is it so? Is there a possibility that we need religion on some basic level?
Charles said,
November 29, 2014 at 9:16 am
I was an atheist at one time too. I made the same mistake this blog makes: 1) arguing that God is not real because Christians act horribly in his name (e.g Lee Strobel lying.) While it is true that many Christians act miserably, it says nothing one way or another about the actual reality. God is love, and his love is not disproven by the fact that we fail at love.
2) the insistence that faith is illegitimate unless it meets some philosophical or scientific-historical proof test. Maybe apologists like Strobel are trying too hard, Maybe they are wasting their time. There is so much of life that can’t meet this test, yet we accept it. Even an atheist, when he or she kisses their children goodnight, say “I love you,” even though “love” as a concept cannot meet an atheists truth test any more than faith. Technically, we should say “I have a genetic biological kinship for you, so don’t worry.” But we still say love, and we believe that word has meaning. Silly human race.
I do believe love has meaning. I am sure it looks like I am projecting my need into the air and creating faith in something that is not there (Hegel and Feurbach be praised!). Or maybe God is there and he loves us.
3) Evaluating fundamentalist Christianity as if it is Christianity per se.
I don’t believe in God because of biblical innerancy or the creation museum or Lee Strobel. In fact, you do God a favor by dedunking all that! You can have at it! Debunk what you will. I will cheer you on! You have not come close to debunking my faith. There are many expressions of faith, and may reasons why people believe. I think some Christians and some atheists have a lot in common. They both reject versions of religions which result in hatefulness and terrorism. They reject easy answers and sloppy apologetics.
But, I still have room for mystery. Don’t you?
Charles
adam said,
January 23, 2015 at 1:20 pm
what do you think of this argument, and what are it’s flaws.
“P1. Anything that exists has an explination of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external explanation.
Note 1: uncaused, caused by another, or self-caused
Note 2: impossible existence, possible existence, necessary existence
Note 3: illusion, self-created, self-existent, or created by a self-existent
P2. Every effect has an antecedent cause that must be significant enough to account for the effect caused.
P3 Every effect is both contingent in its begining and in its being.
Note: in causa (cause) , in esse (being), and in fieri (becoming or continuing)
P4 Every effect is currently caused to exist by another.
P5 There can not be an infinite regress of current causes of existing.
P6 Therefore a first uncaused cause of my current existence exists, because I undeniably exist.
P7 This uncaused cause must be infinite, unchanging, all-powerful, all-knowing, pure actuality, and all-perfect. (Among other things)
P8 This infinitely perfect being is appropriately called God.
P9 Therefore God exists.
P10 This God is identical to the God of the Bible.
Conclusion: The God of the Bible exists.”
John E. said,
December 19, 2015 at 12:56 pm
P1: just an assertion
P2: just an assertion
P3: incoherent
P4: not true in quantum mechanics
P5: just an assertion
P6: does not follow even if P1-P5 were correct
P7: just an assertion
P8: just an assertion
P9: (depends on P6-P8 being true, which they aren’t)
P10: even if P1-P9 were correct (which they aren’t), you can’t move from P9 to P10. Why couldn’t it be the God of the Koran, or the Book of Mormon, or some other religious text?
So yeah, I’d say that’s a terrible argument.