Before the gospels appeared -- apostate hellenized jew Saul of Tarsus, aka Paul, had already created primitive xianity. Today’s fundies (and many RCs) carry on his fine traditional religious practices. These are vile doctrines appealing to antisocial losers -- revenge filled, anti-intellectual, misogynistic.

Paul’s self-deluded ego inflation runs rampant when writing to members of a secretive, underground sect in Corinth Greece about 50 CE:

26-Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27-But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28-He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are . . . . 1Cor1:26-28 NIV

Nietzsche saw in these few lines the great inversion of values which lies at the diseased core of western culture. His task became “the re-valuation of all values” -- to overthrow religious institutions and moral “intuitions” perverted by xian valuations.

anti-supernaturalist

OMGF, Chesterton's fiction is the weakest part of his output. I agree that he's a terrible short-story writer. But he does much better with essays. Most of his famous non-fiction books are really collections of essays with a unifying theme.

If you can survive Chesterton, most other apologetics hold no terror.

That sounds like a challenge to me. :) We'll just have to see if I can find some copies of these books...

As opposed to the humility of believing that the Creator of the universe cares about your personal welfare, and answers your prayers.

Or the insuperable arrogance of assuming one knows just who this Creator is and what He/She/It (Them?) wants in the first place.

As opposed to the humility of believing that the Creator of the universe cares about your personal welfare, and answers your prayers.

If you can survive Chesterton, most other apologetics hold no terror. If you can't survive Chesterton... I guess I can find you in Rome?

Chesterton held no sway over me. If I granted him his presuppositions, then his argument could have persuaded me but I had far too many "oh come on!" moments for him to really set the hook. He's a damn fine writer, no doubt, but a product of his time.

...a belief that needs this much work to believe in isn't really a belief but a very strong desire to believe.

I strongly agree with this, and I don't think it stops there. I suspect the lines of thought very often include:

- I want to believe.
- I really, really want to believe.
- I like to think of myself as someone who believes.
- If I keep telling myself that I believe, I will overcome my doubts.
- I have decided to believe, therefore I do believe.
- I have expressed my belief proudly and publicly, and would have to explain myself if I stopped.
- If I act like I believe, other people will believe that I believe, and this will earn me many of the same benefits as actually believing.
- If I say I believe, no one can challenge me on it, since I am the only one who can really know.

Of course there are 2 little things:
What kind of prick would sentence you to Hell for all eternity because you chose to follow evidence?
and,
If you didn't use logic or evidence to start off with, how do you know you picked the right revelation to adhere to? Without those ingredients your selection criteria are likely to be completely arbitrary (feelings, geography of birth, ethnicity, economic status) and you are taking a crap shoot with eternity.