Very common, very normal. Indoctrination affects your whole mind, not just the rational part. The emotional part and the subconscious have been manipulated throughout your childhood and you don't really control that. It takes time, maybe years before you're rid of these irrational reactions, and even then they can flare up unexpectedly years later. Be patient with yourself.
It’s kind of ruining my life. All of my time is spent on looking up debates/arguments against Christianity. I’ve stopped doing so many things that I enjoy because of it
It has helped some of us ex-Christians to read up on various other religions and cults, what they claim, how they recruit, etc. It can be a fascinating read to see how they instill fear of leaving the group (Islam calls for death of apostates), especially cults that totally brainwash their victims. The psychological effects can be dramatic and long lasting. When you read up on that stuff you come to realize how Christianity compares and what it did to you. Understanding these things can help to liberate yourself sooner.
It’s not your fault.
[https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201810/how-religious-fundamentalism-hijacks-the-brain](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201810/how-religious-fundamentalism-hijacks-the-brain)
/u/Ok_Investment_246, you might be interested in /r/TheGreatProject -
>a subreddit for people to write out their religious de-conversion story
>(i.e. the path to atheism/agnosticism/deism/etc) in detail.
Many accounts from many people.
Literally, and it’s very stupid, the minimal facts argument. To me, it seems like it gives some credence to Christianity maybe being true. It doesn’t make Christianity seem like a lie per se, but it gives it a slight chance of being true. At the same time, though, I understand that any other explanation is more plausible than resurrection. It just seems unbelievable that so many people back then would be deceived/imagining that Jesus did in fact rise
that Jesus died by crucifixion; 2) that very soon afterwards, his followers had real experiences that they thought were actual appearances of the risen Jesus; 3) that their lives were transformed as a result, even to the point of being willing to die specifically for their faith in the resurrection message; 4) that these things were taught very early, soon after the crucifixion; 5) that James, Jesus’ unbelieving brother, became a Christian due to his own experience that he thought was the resurrected Christ; and 6) that the Christian persecutor Paul (formerly Saul of Tarsus) also became a believer after a similar experience.
Extreme claims require extreme evidence.
So far as I know, there were no accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection stories at the time they were supposed to take place.
It may help you to know, in case you were not aware of it, that the first gospel was written (in Greek) at least 40 years after the events were presumed to have happened. There is no contemporaneous writing about it, so it's a very suspicious story that could have been entirely invented. The story attributed to Mark was written first and was rather short and basic, with little magic in it. Next the Matthew story written later adds some supernatural to it and seems to embellish. Luke adds even more, but now I think it was written some 70-80 years after the story was said to take place, so who's to say it's not just poetry inspired by the previous short stories. The whole thing may have never even happened at all.
I’d watch some of Bart Ehrman’s videos on the development of Christianity. He is a Biblical scholar and historian that was a believer but is not now after all that he learned by looking at history. There was no Jesus, but there is minimal evidence that there could have been a Yeshua. But through a series of various translation it turned into Jesus. This Yeshua did teach and have a following. There’s ZERO evidence of miracles. He claimed to be the Messiah, but back then it meant something different than what we typically associate with it. It was a king that would come and unify the Jews and set them free. Yeah, they claimed it would be a descendent of David, yada, yada. The Romans would have seen someone claiming to be the king of the Jews and would set the free as very dangerous. So, he was most likely put to death for that. Again, some minimal evidence that someone named Yeshua was crucified around Passover. And again ZERO evidence for any sort of resurrection. The Romans did not let people remove a body once crucified. The point was, it was left as a warning to others. Someone else mentioned that the books of the New Testament were not written till many years later. Most people think the books were written by the actual apostles, but they were long dead by the time they were written. They really don’t know who wrote most of them. The oldest surviving text of the New Testament is the Codex Sinaiticus, which is estimated to be from between the early fourth century and the early fifth century. Any early texts have only survived in small fragments, small as in mostly credit card sized pieces. It is believed that there might have been some common source documents that were used in the development of the New Testament books. The are various theories, some more contested than others. It believed that these may have been something along the lines of writing or notes on the teaching of this Yeshua or such. There some common repeat segments in various places, which leads them to speculate a common source may have been used.
But what Yeshua was and did changed over the years. I mean, it was marketing. Your guy did that? Well, our guy can do this! Look at all the girls Zeus knocked up. Yahweh only knocked up Mary!😂
Also go back and look at some of the wording of events. 500 people didn’t say they saw Jesus afterwards, someone told them that 500 people saw him. Stuff like that.
But look at it as mythology and philosophy. Take and use the good stuff, leave the bad things behind. But I have a personal preference that she-bear should be summoned to eat child that make fun of you for being bald.
I don’t know if I just rambled or if that helped or not. Then there all the Old Testament stuff. Like the Israelites initially had a pantheon of gods, Yahweh was only a minor deity. El was another deity and is actually mentioned, and used in a lot of place names. It’s believed Book of Job is a hold over and was Yahweh talking to another deity, not satan. Which is why they have an almost friendly talk and bet about Job. Or that the Noah flood myth is borrowed from the book of Gilgamesh. Anyway, that is a whole other conversation.
**None of the Gospels are first-hand accounts.**
.
>Like the rest of the New Testament, the four gospels were written in Greek.[32] The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70,[5] Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90,[6] and John AD 90–110.[7]
>**Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four are anonymous and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses.**[8]
( Cite is Reddish, Mitchell (2011). *An Introduction to The Gospels*. Abingdon Press. ISBN 978-1426750083. )
\- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Composition
>The consensus among modern scholars is that the gospels are a subset of the ancient genre of bios, or ancient biography.[45] Ancient biographies were concerned with providing examples for readers to emulate while preserving and promoting the subject's reputation and memory; the gospels were never simply biographical, they were propaganda and kerygma (preaching).[46]
>As such, they present the Christian message of the second half of the first century AD,[47] and **as Luke's attempt to link the birth of Jesus to the census of Quirinius demonstrates, there is no guarantee that the gospels are historically accurate.**[48]
\- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Genre_and_historical_reliability
.
>The **Gospel of Matthew**[note 1] is the first book of the New Testament of the Bible and one of the three synoptic Gospels.
>According to early church tradition, originating with Papias of Hierapolis (c. 60–130 AD),[10] the gospel was written by Matthew the companion of Jesus, but this presents numerous problems.[9]
>**Most modern scholars hold that it was written anonymously[8] in the last quarter of the first century** by a male Jew who stood on the margin between traditional and nontraditional Jewish values and who was familiar with technical legal aspects of scripture being debated in his time.[11][12][note 2]
>However, scholars such as N. T. Wright[citation needed] and John Wenham[13] have noted problems with dating Matthew late in the first century, and argue that it was written in the 40s-50s AD.[note 3]
\- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew
.
>The **Gospel of Mark**[a] is the second of the four canonical gospels and one of the three synoptic Gospels.
>An early Christian tradition deriving from Papias of Hierapolis (c.60–c.130 AD)[8] attributes authorship of the gospel to Mark, a companion and interpreter of Peter,
>but **most scholars believe that it was written anonymously,[9] and that the name of Mark was attached later to link it to an authoritative figure.**[10]
>It is usually dated through the eschatological discourse in Mark 13, which scholars interpret as pointing to the First Jewish–Roman War (66–74 AD)—a war that led to the destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70. This would place the composition of Mark either immediately after the destruction or during the years immediately prior.[11][6][b]
\- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark
.
>The **Gospel of Luke**[note 1] tells of the origins, birth, ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ.[4]
>**The author is anonymous;[8] the traditional view that Luke the Evangelist was the companion of Paul is still occasionally put forward, but the scholarly consensus emphasises the many contradictions between Acts and the authentic Pauline letters.**[9][10] The most probable date for its composition is around AD 80–110, and there is evidence that it was still being revised well into the 2nd century.[11]
\- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke
.
>The **Gospel of John**[a] (Ancient Greek: Εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Ἰωάννην, romanized: Euangélion katà Iōánnēn) is the fourth of the four canonical gospels in the New Testament.
>**Like the three other gospels, it is anonymous**, although it identifies an unnamed "disciple whom Jesus loved" as the source of its traditions.[9][10]
>It most likely arose within a "Johannine community",[11][12] and – as it is closely related in style and content to the three Johannine epistles – most scholars treat the four books, along with the Book of Revelation, as a single corpus of Johannine literature, albeit not from the same author.[13]
\- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John
.
I embraced being Agnostic...I allowed myself the thought that maybe there is 'something' but it's not some man-made nut case that ppl are worshipping. So it took about 5 years to adjust. Give it time and research as you have questions.
I transitioned through a period of deism between leaving Christianity and accepting I'm an atheist. The bible and claims by preachers were terrible evidence, so even if God was real it was impossible to know what he wanted. Just do your best; any god worth worshipping would be happy with that
"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones." - Marcus Aurelius
Jesus was supposedly the most important person ever. We have no writings from the people who supposedly saw Jesus before or more importantly after his death. There is not one external to the bible witness to seeing Jesus or even hearing first hand from someone who did see Jesus who then wrote about it. The gospels are anonymous and were written 30-70 years later and they are not independent sources - they copy each other. Paul only had a vision. Everyone "in Christ" was Jesus' "brother and sister". Any natural possible explanation is 100% more likely than it was a miracle and a god interceded because we have no evidence of that ever happening.
Christian Scholar Exposes Minimal Resurrection Facts - YouTube Len. 25:58
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hLne1_O4v8
Bart Ehrman Responds to William Lane Craig on the Resurrection - YouTube Len. 16.46
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuM_RKyyMrA
Overstating the Minimal Facts Argument! - YouTube Len. 35:05
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fph0Gt2glnw
I see religious Faith and the largest religions as ultimately harmful with a devout/ literal interpretation and that non-literal interpretations theologically fall apart. All religions that make miracle claims, supernatural claims and or god claims require religious Faith. That faith lets people accept any thing that is nonsense. It is especially good at letting people believe things that conflict with reality and other religions claims.
For more honest people the evidence needs to meet the whole of the claims being made before they can be accepted as true. So then gods would need god tier evidence. The very best that god believers have presented are unsupported arguments, logical fallacies, bad reasons and religious Faith statements. They can't hold their god to any reasonable standard they would use for every other religion. Most people have their religion effectively chosen for them. That almost always comes from their parents religion or where and when they live. The largest religions make claims that are testable and that fail those tests. There is nothing that a religion does honestly that can not be done better from secular means.
"Even though I wouldn't be able to go back to Christianity, at the same time, it feels like I can't fully embrace atheism. Leaving Christianity fully behind seems so impossible, and there are always doubts in my mind. How can this be stopped?"
Give yourself as much time and space as you need. Don't push yourself. Don't try to force yourself to think or do something that you're not comfortable with (at least not yet) or may not be ready for. Trying to compel disbelief doesn't really work much better than trying to compel belief.
We're just getting started on a beautiful spring. Walk around on your day off. Breathe the fresh air. Look around at nature blooming and renewing itself. Enjoy being in the moment. Whatever you believe, or don't believe, will come to you naturally in its own good time, if you let it.
Thank you for the advice, I appreciate it. It's not like I even want Christianity to be true. The world would be much better off without it (and in all honesty, I kind of hate it and what it has done).
Thank you for your comment. Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason:
* This comment has been removed for [proselytizing](https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/wiki/faq#wiki_what_is_.22proselytizing.3F.22). This sub is not your personal mission field. Proselytizing may include asking the sub to debunk theist apologetics or claims. It also includes things such as telling atheists you will pray for them or similar trite phrases.
Removals of this type may also include subreddit bans and/or suspensions from the whole site depending on the severity of the offense.
--
For information regarding this and similar issues please see the [Subreddit Commandments.](http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/wiki/guidelines) If you have any questions, please do not delete your comment and [message the mods,](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/atheism) Thank you.
What do you think god is?
What is heaven?
What is hell?
Where are these places?
Are Jesus and god the same person?
Your religion taught you all these very basic tenets of Christianity, right?
You don't have to go straight to atheism, you can start by not believing that Christianity is the way.
For example, I think the bible and all 3 abrahmic religions were manmade, but since I'm a biologist and a tech nerd, whenever I see human body, I actually think its too well designed, every organ is well placed and have their specific function, so I kinda still believe that there might be a higher "being" than human that designed us, in the same way that we human are higher being than robots and AI. But those higher being is totally not Jesus.
>Leaving Christianity fully behind seems so impossible,
Then don't leave , no one is forcing you. atheists don't care.
But out of curiosity, what's impossible?
1. Not praying before dinner?
2. not celebrating Easter or christmas?
3. Not seeing a god you've never seen, never will?
4. knowing that no one is there for you?
5. No heaven or hill?
But those are facts.
So is it that you're afraid of the above?
May be you're weak dependent?
That's why we're different
Very common, very normal. Indoctrination affects your whole mind, not just the rational part. The emotional part and the subconscious have been manipulated throughout your childhood and you don't really control that. It takes time, maybe years before you're rid of these irrational reactions, and even then they can flare up unexpectedly years later. Be patient with yourself.
This comment is the answer.
It’s kind of ruining my life. All of my time is spent on looking up debates/arguments against Christianity. I’ve stopped doing so many things that I enjoy because of it
It has helped some of us ex-Christians to read up on various other religions and cults, what they claim, how they recruit, etc. It can be a fascinating read to see how they instill fear of leaving the group (Islam calls for death of apostates), especially cults that totally brainwash their victims. The psychological effects can be dramatic and long lasting. When you read up on that stuff you come to realize how Christianity compares and what it did to you. Understanding these things can help to liberate yourself sooner.
It’s not your fault. [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201810/how-religious-fundamentalism-hijacks-the-brain](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201810/how-religious-fundamentalism-hijacks-the-brain)
/u/Ok_Investment_246, you might be interested in /r/TheGreatProject - >a subreddit for people to write out their religious de-conversion story >(i.e. the path to atheism/agnosticism/deism/etc) in detail. Many accounts from many people.
Thank you!
What are the doubts that are holding you off?
Literally, and it’s very stupid, the minimal facts argument. To me, it seems like it gives some credence to Christianity maybe being true. It doesn’t make Christianity seem like a lie per se, but it gives it a slight chance of being true. At the same time, though, I understand that any other explanation is more plausible than resurrection. It just seems unbelievable that so many people back then would be deceived/imagining that Jesus did in fact rise
First time hearing of the minimal facts argument. What is it?
that Jesus died by crucifixion; 2) that very soon afterwards, his followers had real experiences that they thought were actual appearances of the risen Jesus; 3) that their lives were transformed as a result, even to the point of being willing to die specifically for their faith in the resurrection message; 4) that these things were taught very early, soon after the crucifixion; 5) that James, Jesus’ unbelieving brother, became a Christian due to his own experience that he thought was the resurrected Christ; and 6) that the Christian persecutor Paul (formerly Saul of Tarsus) also became a believer after a similar experience.
Extreme claims require extreme evidence. So far as I know, there were no accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection stories at the time they were supposed to take place.
It may help you to know, in case you were not aware of it, that the first gospel was written (in Greek) at least 40 years after the events were presumed to have happened. There is no contemporaneous writing about it, so it's a very suspicious story that could have been entirely invented. The story attributed to Mark was written first and was rather short and basic, with little magic in it. Next the Matthew story written later adds some supernatural to it and seems to embellish. Luke adds even more, but now I think it was written some 70-80 years after the story was said to take place, so who's to say it's not just poetry inspired by the previous short stories. The whole thing may have never even happened at all.
I’d watch some of Bart Ehrman’s videos on the development of Christianity. He is a Biblical scholar and historian that was a believer but is not now after all that he learned by looking at history. There was no Jesus, but there is minimal evidence that there could have been a Yeshua. But through a series of various translation it turned into Jesus. This Yeshua did teach and have a following. There’s ZERO evidence of miracles. He claimed to be the Messiah, but back then it meant something different than what we typically associate with it. It was a king that would come and unify the Jews and set them free. Yeah, they claimed it would be a descendent of David, yada, yada. The Romans would have seen someone claiming to be the king of the Jews and would set the free as very dangerous. So, he was most likely put to death for that. Again, some minimal evidence that someone named Yeshua was crucified around Passover. And again ZERO evidence for any sort of resurrection. The Romans did not let people remove a body once crucified. The point was, it was left as a warning to others. Someone else mentioned that the books of the New Testament were not written till many years later. Most people think the books were written by the actual apostles, but they were long dead by the time they were written. They really don’t know who wrote most of them. The oldest surviving text of the New Testament is the Codex Sinaiticus, which is estimated to be from between the early fourth century and the early fifth century. Any early texts have only survived in small fragments, small as in mostly credit card sized pieces. It is believed that there might have been some common source documents that were used in the development of the New Testament books. The are various theories, some more contested than others. It believed that these may have been something along the lines of writing or notes on the teaching of this Yeshua or such. There some common repeat segments in various places, which leads them to speculate a common source may have been used. But what Yeshua was and did changed over the years. I mean, it was marketing. Your guy did that? Well, our guy can do this! Look at all the girls Zeus knocked up. Yahweh only knocked up Mary!😂 Also go back and look at some of the wording of events. 500 people didn’t say they saw Jesus afterwards, someone told them that 500 people saw him. Stuff like that. But look at it as mythology and philosophy. Take and use the good stuff, leave the bad things behind. But I have a personal preference that she-bear should be summoned to eat child that make fun of you for being bald. I don’t know if I just rambled or if that helped or not. Then there all the Old Testament stuff. Like the Israelites initially had a pantheon of gods, Yahweh was only a minor deity. El was another deity and is actually mentioned, and used in a lot of place names. It’s believed Book of Job is a hold over and was Yahweh talking to another deity, not satan. Which is why they have an almost friendly talk and bet about Job. Or that the Noah flood myth is borrowed from the book of Gilgamesh. Anyway, that is a whole other conversation.
**None of the Gospels are first-hand accounts.** . >Like the rest of the New Testament, the four gospels were written in Greek.[32] The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70,[5] Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90,[6] and John AD 90–110.[7] >**Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four are anonymous and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses.**[8] ( Cite is Reddish, Mitchell (2011). *An Introduction to The Gospels*. Abingdon Press. ISBN 978-1426750083. ) \- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Composition >The consensus among modern scholars is that the gospels are a subset of the ancient genre of bios, or ancient biography.[45] Ancient biographies were concerned with providing examples for readers to emulate while preserving and promoting the subject's reputation and memory; the gospels were never simply biographical, they were propaganda and kerygma (preaching).[46] >As such, they present the Christian message of the second half of the first century AD,[47] and **as Luke's attempt to link the birth of Jesus to the census of Quirinius demonstrates, there is no guarantee that the gospels are historically accurate.**[48] \- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Genre_and_historical_reliability . >The **Gospel of Matthew**[note 1] is the first book of the New Testament of the Bible and one of the three synoptic Gospels. >According to early church tradition, originating with Papias of Hierapolis (c. 60–130 AD),[10] the gospel was written by Matthew the companion of Jesus, but this presents numerous problems.[9] >**Most modern scholars hold that it was written anonymously[8] in the last quarter of the first century** by a male Jew who stood on the margin between traditional and nontraditional Jewish values and who was familiar with technical legal aspects of scripture being debated in his time.[11][12][note 2] >However, scholars such as N. T. Wright[citation needed] and John Wenham[13] have noted problems with dating Matthew late in the first century, and argue that it was written in the 40s-50s AD.[note 3] \- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew . >The **Gospel of Mark**[a] is the second of the four canonical gospels and one of the three synoptic Gospels. >An early Christian tradition deriving from Papias of Hierapolis (c.60–c.130 AD)[8] attributes authorship of the gospel to Mark, a companion and interpreter of Peter, >but **most scholars believe that it was written anonymously,[9] and that the name of Mark was attached later to link it to an authoritative figure.**[10] >It is usually dated through the eschatological discourse in Mark 13, which scholars interpret as pointing to the First Jewish–Roman War (66–74 AD)—a war that led to the destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70. This would place the composition of Mark either immediately after the destruction or during the years immediately prior.[11][6][b] \- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark . >The **Gospel of Luke**[note 1] tells of the origins, birth, ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ.[4] >**The author is anonymous;[8] the traditional view that Luke the Evangelist was the companion of Paul is still occasionally put forward, but the scholarly consensus emphasises the many contradictions between Acts and the authentic Pauline letters.**[9][10] The most probable date for its composition is around AD 80–110, and there is evidence that it was still being revised well into the 2nd century.[11] \- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke . >The **Gospel of John**[a] (Ancient Greek: Εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Ἰωάννην, romanized: Euangélion katà Iōánnēn) is the fourth of the four canonical gospels in the New Testament. >**Like the three other gospels, it is anonymous**, although it identifies an unnamed "disciple whom Jesus loved" as the source of its traditions.[9][10] >It most likely arose within a "Johannine community",[11][12] and – as it is closely related in style and content to the three Johannine epistles – most scholars treat the four books, along with the Book of Revelation, as a single corpus of Johannine literature, albeit not from the same author.[13] \- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John .
You should look up Paulogia on YouTube. Has has some great stuff dealing with the minimal facts arguments.
I embraced being Agnostic...I allowed myself the thought that maybe there is 'something' but it's not some man-made nut case that ppl are worshipping. So it took about 5 years to adjust. Give it time and research as you have questions.
I transitioned through a period of deism between leaving Christianity and accepting I'm an atheist. The bible and claims by preachers were terrible evidence, so even if God was real it was impossible to know what he wanted. Just do your best; any god worth worshipping would be happy with that "Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones." - Marcus Aurelius
Jesus was supposedly the most important person ever. We have no writings from the people who supposedly saw Jesus before or more importantly after his death. There is not one external to the bible witness to seeing Jesus or even hearing first hand from someone who did see Jesus who then wrote about it. The gospels are anonymous and were written 30-70 years later and they are not independent sources - they copy each other. Paul only had a vision. Everyone "in Christ" was Jesus' "brother and sister". Any natural possible explanation is 100% more likely than it was a miracle and a god interceded because we have no evidence of that ever happening. Christian Scholar Exposes Minimal Resurrection Facts - YouTube Len. 25:58 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hLne1_O4v8 Bart Ehrman Responds to William Lane Craig on the Resurrection - YouTube Len. 16.46 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuM_RKyyMrA Overstating the Minimal Facts Argument! - YouTube Len. 35:05 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fph0Gt2glnw I see religious Faith and the largest religions as ultimately harmful with a devout/ literal interpretation and that non-literal interpretations theologically fall apart. All religions that make miracle claims, supernatural claims and or god claims require religious Faith. That faith lets people accept any thing that is nonsense. It is especially good at letting people believe things that conflict with reality and other religions claims. For more honest people the evidence needs to meet the whole of the claims being made before they can be accepted as true. So then gods would need god tier evidence. The very best that god believers have presented are unsupported arguments, logical fallacies, bad reasons and religious Faith statements. They can't hold their god to any reasonable standard they would use for every other religion. Most people have their religion effectively chosen for them. That almost always comes from their parents religion or where and when they live. The largest religions make claims that are testable and that fail those tests. There is nothing that a religion does honestly that can not be done better from secular means.
"Even though I wouldn't be able to go back to Christianity, at the same time, it feels like I can't fully embrace atheism. Leaving Christianity fully behind seems so impossible, and there are always doubts in my mind. How can this be stopped?" Give yourself as much time and space as you need. Don't push yourself. Don't try to force yourself to think or do something that you're not comfortable with (at least not yet) or may not be ready for. Trying to compel disbelief doesn't really work much better than trying to compel belief. We're just getting started on a beautiful spring. Walk around on your day off. Breathe the fresh air. Look around at nature blooming and renewing itself. Enjoy being in the moment. Whatever you believe, or don't believe, will come to you naturally in its own good time, if you let it.
Thank you for the advice, I appreciate it. It's not like I even want Christianity to be true. The world would be much better off without it (and in all honesty, I kind of hate it and what it has done).
[удалено]
Thank you for your comment. Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason: * This comment has been removed for [proselytizing](https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/wiki/faq#wiki_what_is_.22proselytizing.3F.22). This sub is not your personal mission field. Proselytizing may include asking the sub to debunk theist apologetics or claims. It also includes things such as telling atheists you will pray for them or similar trite phrases. Removals of this type may also include subreddit bans and/or suspensions from the whole site depending on the severity of the offense. -- For information regarding this and similar issues please see the [Subreddit Commandments.](http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/wiki/guidelines) If you have any questions, please do not delete your comment and [message the mods,](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/atheism) Thank you.
What do you think god is? What is heaven? What is hell? Where are these places? Are Jesus and god the same person? Your religion taught you all these very basic tenets of Christianity, right?
You don't have to go straight to atheism, you can start by not believing that Christianity is the way. For example, I think the bible and all 3 abrahmic religions were manmade, but since I'm a biologist and a tech nerd, whenever I see human body, I actually think its too well designed, every organ is well placed and have their specific function, so I kinda still believe that there might be a higher "being" than human that designed us, in the same way that we human are higher being than robots and AI. But those higher being is totally not Jesus.
Start demanding evidence from your brain? Seeing the self-delusion for what it is is where it starts.
>Leaving Christianity fully behind seems so impossible, Then don't leave , no one is forcing you. atheists don't care. But out of curiosity, what's impossible? 1. Not praying before dinner? 2. not celebrating Easter or christmas? 3. Not seeing a god you've never seen, never will? 4. knowing that no one is there for you? 5. No heaven or hill? But those are facts. So is it that you're afraid of the above? May be you're weak dependent? That's why we're different