Convince me

[smiley]

I suggest you (the original poster) studying the Historical Jesus. Begin with this series of videos to gain some interest:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdvjJrKd1do

not really anything new, i know the romans used whips with sharp steel pieces in the end, wich slice flesh off ones body and kill pretty easily and painfully. i know how crusifiction works.

Watch all the damn videos, not just the first one.

the problem is that hes using mostly the letters of paul, no texts outside the bible.

And why is that a problem? The New Testament is essentially a collection of historical documents and letters by 1st century Christians.

[Jumalaton]

I suggest you (the original poster) studying the Historical Jesus. Begin with this series of videos to gain some interest:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdvjJrKd1do

not really anything new, i know the romans used whips with sharp steel pieces in the end, wich slice flesh off ones body and kill pretty easily and painfully. i know how crusifiction works.

Watch all the damn videos, not just the first one.

the problem is that hes using mostly the letters of paul, no texts outside the bible.

And why is that a problem? The New Testament is essentially a collection of historical documents and letters by 1st century Christians.

i did watch all the damn 'videos', its a 6parter.
the problem is that the gospels are based on information heard from mouth to mouth, they were not made by the eye-witnessers. paul did not know jesus, he says that he saw and heard what he expected to be jesus and was blinded by bright light, he heard about him. also, the history writer back in those days had very different principles than the history writers of today. thousands of years ago history was written in a way where the writers excaggerate their stories and fill the possible gaps with stories made up by theyreselfs.
i have not read the new testament yet, i might just skip the old testament and read it later to get back into this interesting topic later.

Those statistics about Estonia that you cited (I wouldn't be surprised at all if they were separate surveys that got different results for different reasons and aren't complementary) are a case in point- most people don't have a consistent worldview. Even look at the most popular "pop atheists". Dawkins calls himself a "passionately anti-Darwinian" in human affairs.

the statistics about estonia are all from the same source, eurobarometer 2005, 5years old but i dont think the numbers have chanched critically in a few years.
yep, nobody would want an darwinian society, where the strong survive and weak fall. but why are we not living in a darwinian society? because its a part of human nature to want to take care of the weak and help others. i havent yet studied what has caused humen to become beings who help others. i remember reading something about the subject but i dont remember much about it right now. even animals help each other so there has to be a benefit in it...

The reason we have this standard is because in the past when we did not, we found that there was an large amount of people who wanted to come on who were not interested in understanding Christ and Christianity and they just wanted to argue and promote their own beliefs, or lack of belief in the case of atheists. Those of us here who are moderators, found it was difficult to handle all of the traffic and we're not here to argue and debate for it's own sake.

well i have to say that the arguments favoring the existance of god in godandscience.org have been the best ive heard so far. i dont like the word debating nor arguing, intelligent discussion would be better, dabeting and arguing sounds so agressive and reminds of something like bill maher telling everyone who believes in god that theyre crazy and the videos ive seen of americans ''debating'' on television, they dont even let each other finish their sentences, thats not debating.

What do you mean by "scientifically skeptic theists"?

scientifically sceptic means not believing without evidence and theist is a person who believes in a god.

Just a question- why are you here?

reading the arguments and discussing with only the supporters of one side of a big question might lead into fundementalism and accepting only people who think similarily.

[narnia4]

Fair enough, I hope you feel free to ask a lot of questions and approach things with an open mind.

I still think it's telling that many atheists are not willing to live lives that are consistent with their worldview and borrow from a Christian worldview while denouncing it. What's craziest is when naturalists call Christians things like "evil", when a naturalist has no justification in believing there is such a thing as evil. It's part of what makes the argument for God from the existence of objective morality compelling (the argument doesn't have to be a simple emotional appeal, either), and you'll find more on that argument on this site I believe.

Those results from Estonia are pretty interesting, thank you for that.

Oh, and I agree with you on some of the "debating" that goes on in America and around the world. People seem to becoming less and less interested in dialogue that strengthens people's understanding of the subject and more on "beating" the other side and attacking them. Bill Maher is a good example, or some of the so-called "new atheists". Because of some of their "documentaries", people can get a very bad impression of Christianity as a whole when they aren't giving an accurate presentation of what Christians believe. Very rarely do I see them interviewing top (and very influential) Christian philosophers, theologians, and thinkers like William Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias, Alvin Platinga, and many more. Because of this, many atheists aren't even aware that there ARE a large number of Christian philosophers who are very intelligent and doing great work. Of course, Christians can be guilty of the same thing. On the whole, there's a lot of great stuff going on that gets overshadowed by the sort of thing that you're talking about.

Finally, the reason I asked what you mean by "scientifically skeptic theists" wasn't because I was unfamiliar with the terms, just wondering why you would think people here are skeptical of science. In a general sense, I don't think they are. Lots of people here have a lot of interest in science and some of them are scientists.

[Jumalaton]

I still think it's telling that many atheists are not willing to live lives that are consistent with their worldview and borrow from a Christian worldview while denouncing it.

Finally, the reason I asked what you mean by "scientifically skeptic theists" wasn't because I was unfamiliar with the terms, just wondering why you would think people here are skeptical of science. In a general sense, I don't think they are. Lots of people here have a lot of interest in science and some of them are scientists.

i didnt mean to be sceptical of science, but scientifically sceptical. theres two types of sceptisism, philosofical sceptism and scientific sceptism. philosofical sceptism thinks every belief can be questioned, no matter how much evidence there is supporting that belief, for example, someone philosofically sceptic might start to argue that there might have not been an ice age, no matter how much proof there is supporting that.
scientifical sceptism is questioning beliefs that have very little evidence supporting it, or no evidence at all. for example, if the only evidence of an ice age would be a few large pieces of rock that has been relocated by glacial ice, we would say that there propably was no ice age and we would admit that we dont know what moved those huge pieces of rock in the middle of forests all around the northern europe.

edit: one thing i want to ask about your view of hell and heaven, i remember talking with some christian about hell and she said that god/jesus will judge everyone, but that the bible says that the judgement of god/jesus, dont remember wich, is always mercy. is it really correct?

what does an atheistic worldview borrow from a christian worldview?

[narnia4]

Ok, I see I misinterpreted your post there for what you meant by scientifically skeptical.

What does an atheist borrow from a Christian worldview? Too many things to name here. From phrases used to morality. Although not exclusively Christian, is it logical for an atheist to believe in consciousness and free will? If somebody like Dawkins has the tenacity to claim that religion itself is responsible for the 9/11 attacks, you'd think he could explain why the 9/11 attacks were bad. From an atheistic standpoint, can it be considered a "bad" thing? I don't think so, and yet atheists live wildly inconsistent lives in that regard (and in other ways as well).

There are some topics on here about Heaven and Hell. Hell is separation from God when a person isn't willing to accept Him. Whoever accepts Christ and believes in Him will be saved, but whoever rejects Him will spend eternity in Hell. Sometimes Christians refer to God as both "perfectly merciful" and "perfectly just". So God will always judge, but He will always be merciful to those who accept His gift.

[Canuckster1127]

Science itself as a discipline primarily arose with the context of at least cultural Christianity. Certainly elements of it were preserved and passed on through the Arab world and Islam, but many elements quickly leapt forward because of the general freedom which resided more within Christian Europe than other areas of the world where the religious worldview restricted scientific inquiry and development to a far greater degree.

That is often missed when things like Galileo's trial are focused upon as examples of where that dynamic worked in isolated instances within Christendom, which certainly does have episodes and elements of restraint upon science.

[cslewislover]

edit: one thing i want to ask about your view of hell and heaven, i remember talking with some christian about hell and she said that god/jesus will judge everyone, but that the bible says that the judgement of god/jesus, dont remember wich, is always mercy. is it really correct?

what does an atheistic worldview borrow from a christian worldview?

Narnia answered you some, I believe, but I thought I'd say something too. Regarding your first concern, those who have accepted Christ's work - which cleanses us from sin - aren't judged in the same way since God does not see our sin. It's gone. Those who do not accept Christ's work don't want to be with God; their sins are judged and they will be in hell. Hell is a difficult subject and there are a number of threads on it.

Atheists in the west have a received view of life that is hopeful and moral, from the Christian worldview. I think this is fading. In some other cultures, it is considered not only OK to lie, but good in various circumstances. I think most atheists would say it's basically wrong to lie. If you watch foreign films, you may get a feeling of this too. It's been a while since I've watched a number of foreign films, but one reason I wasn't as interested anymore is because so many of them have a pessimistic outlook on life. Things are bad, and then they get worse! There is no hope in the end, no one to rescue us. These are based on worldviews. I think the western atheist still has "hope" since he/she was raised in the western culture, which is based on Christianity.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

I think the western atheist still has "hope" since he/she was raised in the western culture, which is based on Christianity.

Well...maybe. The newest religion is Environmental-consciousness. For the moment, this is only a Western religion: atheists, agnostics and theists alike think they can save the world by sorting their garbage.

So, Jumalaton, do you worship at Mother Nature's Temple? If so, tell us how your religion will save us.

FL

[Jumalaton]

What does an atheist borrow from a Christian worldview? Too many things to name here. From phrases used to morality. Although not exclusively Christian, is it logical for an atheist to believe in consciousness and free will? If somebody like Dawkins has the tenacity to claim that religion itself is responsible for the 9/11 attacks, you'd think he could explain why the 9/11 attacks were bad. From an atheistic standpoint, can it be considered a "bad" thing? I don't think so, and yet atheists live wildly inconsistent lives in that regard (and in other ways as well).

in an atheistic view 911 attacks were not bad? a human wouldnt think its bad to fly airplains into buildings killing thousands? lets go faaaar back to the times when homo erectus was still around. they propably didnt have religion and they acted like animals: all the time searching for food, eating and other stuff vital for survival, no time to start thinking big questions. a group of them go hunting and something bad happens and 30% of the groop die or a disease kills 5% of a gruop of homo erectuses(funny name, hihihi). they wouldnt think its bad?
ok ok, thats might be the worst possible example... ill have another one about some modern specie... monkeys.
in a community of monkeys alot of them die because of a disease or something and the survived monkeys wouldnt feel bad? mourning dead ones happens within the animals too, wouldnt it be kinda underrating to expect homo sapiens to be the one specie that needs religion to mourn, feel bad about dead ones?
ive heard about dogs who have lived their whole life with one human, and the human dies and the dogs get incredibly sad and debressed. ive heard that a dog would have died of sadness, but that was when i was a kid and i think its just a story.

So, Jumalaton, do you worship at Mother Nature's Temple? If so, tell us how your religion will save us.

if you read some of my posts you realize that at the time i worship nothing.


what kind of moral values does atheistic worldview borrow from a christian worldview? christianity borrowed moral values from earlier worldviews. moral values chanche during history, back in the old days it wasnt immoral to enslave africans, transport them in overfilled boats where a huge percent of them died for several reasons but it was still more profitable to load the boat as full as possible than to leave a little breathing room to make the long trip more comfortable and to treat them as objects with no rights. back then, christianity was popular too, so even among christians, moral values chanche.

[cslewislover]

in an atheistic view 911 attacks were not bad? a human wouldnt think its bad to fly airplains into buildings killing thousands?

What does this have to do with what I wrote? I never said that whatsoever. In fact, it seems that you're taking what I said perhaps in an opposite way. On another note, the people doing the attacks did not think they were bad or what they did was bad, and, they were human.

lets go faaaar back to the times when homo erectus was still around. they propably didnt have religion and they acted like animals: all the time searching for food, eating and other stuff vital for survival, no time to start thinking big questions. a group of them go hunting and something bad happens and 30% of the groop die or a disease kills 5% of a gruop of homo erectuses(funny name, hihihi). they wouldnt think its bad?

From what we know from anthropology and archaeology, I'd wager that they did indeed think religiously and think of "big questions" - perhaps more than we do now, actually (I'm talking about early humans - I would need to go back and refresh my memory regarding the different "species"). Why wouldn't they think dying is bad?

ok ok, thats might be the worst possible example... ill have another one about some modern specie... monkeys.
in a community of monkeys alot of them die because of a disease or something and the survived monkeys wouldnt feel bad? mourning dead ones happens within the animals too, wouldnt it be kinda underrating to expect homo sapiens to be the one specie that needs religion to mourn, feel bad about dead ones?
ive heard about dogs who have lived their whole life with one human, and the human dies and the dogs get incredibly sad and debressed. ive heard that a dog would have died of sadness, but that was when i was a kid and i think its just a story.

Yes, animals have emotions like that. I of course can't get inside them to know all, but I've known of a dog that died from sadness. This doesn't have to do with religion, it's just emotions. Our religion is about what will happen to our souls after we die, and our relationship with Christ.

[zoegirl]

What does an atheist borrow from a Christian worldview? Too many things to name here. From phrases used to morality. Although not exclusively Christian, is it logical for an atheist to believe in consciousness and free will? If somebody like Dawkins has the tenacity to claim that religion itself is responsible for the 9/11 attacks, you'd think he could explain why the 9/11 attacks were bad. From an atheistic standpoint, can it be considered a "bad" thing? I don't think so, and yet atheists live wildly inconsistent lives in that regard (and in other ways as well).

in an atheistic view 911 attacks were not bad? a human wouldnt think its bad to fly airplains into buildings killing thousands? lets go faaaar back to the times when homo erectus was still around. they propably didnt have religion and they acted like animals: all the time searching for food, eating and other stuff vital for survival, no time to start thinking big questions. a group of them go hunting and something bad happens and 30% of the groop die or a disease kills 5% of a gruop of homo erectuses(funny name, hihihi). they wouldnt think its bad?
ok ok, thats might be the worst possible example... ill have another one about some modern specie... monkeys.
in a community of monkeys alot of them die because of a disease or something and the survived monkeys wouldnt feel bad? mourning dead ones happens within the animals too, wouldnt it be kinda underrating to expect homo sapiens to be the one specie that needs religion to mourn, feel bad about dead ones?
ive heard about dogs who have lived their whole life with one human, and the human dies and the dogs get incredibly sad and debressed. ive heard that a dog would have died of sadness, but that was when i was a kid and i think its just a story.

Whether or not a human, any human, believes that flying a plane is bad does NOT mean that a person who doesn't feel that it's bad is wrong. That, in essence, is the problem with the morality as an evolutionary solution.

While animals can have emotions, we don't consider it murder when one male deer kills another one in a fit of dominance hierarchical fighting, or chimpanzees killing others from an opposing tribe. They steal, deceive, cheat, and mourn and we don't consider these moral or "bad".

IN an atheist worldview, where a certain type of morality is simply an evolutionary solution, any group that decides on one type of morality is simply a morality bully. CONsider the naturalistic approach....The person who views flying a place into a building to be wrong is just as valid as one who decides that flying a place into a building for their "protection" is right. THere is nothing that says "this moral view trumps that moral view". We are, after all, simply animals. And yet the view that flying a plane into building is wrong is OUR view and yet those Islamic terrorists believed themselves to be right. In an atheist worldview, you have no ability (other than majority view or the power of persuasion) to really judge. There is no arbiter.

If, in another 500 years, selection has selected groups of people who decide that eugenics is valid (and in some cases today, in selective abortion from disabilities or gender selection, we already have that acceptance of eugenics) then this is a perfectly valid view.

If, in some quirk of terrorism, the majority of those who believe terrorism is wrong are killed (say, in an nuclear weapon) and those that believe terrorism to be a perfectly moral action, then that is a perfectly valid moral belief.

[B. W.]

I'd be interested to hear how a person would justify believing in spirits without believing in God...

A little humor:

Answer - just peer into a local Bar and you'll discover many justify believing in spirits!
-
-
-

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

if you read some of my posts you realize that at the time i worship nothing.

Good. Although, for a "strong" atheist, you should understand that morality depends on social concensus. So: nothing is either intrinsicaly "bad" or "good."

This puzzled me:

in an atheistic view 911 attacks were not bad? a human wouldnt think its bad to fly airplains into buildings killing thousands?

You seem to be implying that it is "bad" to fly airplanes into buildings. Actually it may not be; it just depends on the moral references you have decided to adopt. You may feel it is "bad" but you must understand that many people view acts like this as heroic.

Don't worship anything, Jumalaton. Do not even worship your own morality.

FL

[rcscwc]

yet one question, how is jahve more real than thor, ra, asator, ahti, krishna, perkele, turisas and all the other ''pagan'' gods?

By jahve I presume you refer to Jahwe or Jehovah, the Hebrew name for God transliterated into English.

The big difference is simple and big. Jehovah, the God of the Bible and Christianity is infinite. Other gods are finite.
A good atheist can easily prove that a finite god does not exist. No one can prove that the infinite God does not exist.

Please convince me that YHWH, god of Christianity is really infinite. Also convince me how Krishna is not.

Krishna is held to be infinite, withouit beginning and without end.
On the other hand YHWH came to be known only about 6000 years ago.

[Proinsias]

Are you aware you're responding to a 3 year old topic and that's it's been nearly 2 years since the poster you have quoted posted on here?