unsure...

[ebia]

well, you're right about the enlightment and the assumptions.
but I dont see them as relevant for my believe in science

its based on assumptions...yes.
but after all the proof science has provided, why should I care?

It's not science as such that you are being asked to question, but the assumption that the scientific method is universally appropriate - an assumption that is self defeating since it cannot be examined by the scientific method. The idea that everything worth knowing can be shown/falsified by the scientific method is not, itself, supported by science.

perhaps there once was a man Jesus. he got crucified (maybe he was a criminal?), these might be true.. but there is absolutely no reason to believe the "religious" side of the bible.

If he rose from the dead then you've got some serious explaining to do. The resurrection can be supported by historical research providing one is willing to put on one side the assumption of naturalism. The argument to do so is not for the faint hearted -it takes Tom Wright a few thousand pages - and requires some serious thinking about what it means to do historical research, and about our basic epistimology, but it can be done.

Our ways of looking at the world aren't founded on proof, but on attempts to make sense of the stories we hear and experience.

well, thats the major difference between us I guess

That's "our" as in everybody's. The scientific method is a layer added on top of that - our (including your) foundational ideas aren't based on science, they are based on your trying to make meaning of the stories you hear and experience. You weren't born doing science, you were born hearing and experiencing stories and trying to make meaning from them. When you hear a siren in the background you don't start to do some experiements, you start to form a tentative story in your head about what might be happening.

so have the "none-people of God" done aswel... its not because we dont believe in God we dont do anything good.

When the church is doing it's job right it stands out above and beyond that. It did for the first couple of centuries, when almost all the comments we find about Christians in non-Christian letters are referring to their self-sacrificial behaviour, we find it in the actions of people like Desmond Tutu - the small, quiet, unassuming black archbishop who spent the first three hours of each day in prayer and did more than anyone to enable South Africa to abolish apartheid without the blood-bath the world thought inevitable.

once more its proven that we in no way can solve this discussion. you believe what you believe and no "logic" (what I see as logic that is) can convince you.

Logic requires axioms to work on. It cannot (by definition) examine those axioms. An athiest position, or any other position, must be dependent on unproved axioms.

you see Jesus' resurrection as something that really happened. I dont...

If one is determined to try logic, that's the event to try to apply it to. But, since one is trying to examine the foundation of naturalism you can't assume it.

 

[Thomas The Atheist]

Hey Ebia,

I will soon attend to your post but more ive occured more urgent matters...

I sure would appreciate your opinion on this matter.
if you'd like to, go check out the other thread I started (its called "Hey There" and its in the "New Members Intro"...

I really feel sick about what I noticed...