Why the desire to sin?

[Joshua260]

kwing that the

You see;where I disagree. I don’t know of any contemporary non religious writers who claim everything in the Bible is true; do you?
We don’t have contemporary writers that say none of the stuff written in the Koran or the Vedas happened either. Do you consider that significant?

Actually they do deny it. Islam claims Jesus never died but was taken into heaven by God

I have never heard of anybody claiming the body was stolen; the death of Jesus was not a big event during that time so there was no record kept of where he was buried; nobody knows.

The same can be said about the claims of Islam or Hinduism.
When you look at the tragedies of Jonestown, or the Branch Dividians, it’s obvious it doesn’t take much to get someone to die for a lie, because when you tell a lie often enough, you begin to believe it to be the truth

Ken

1: I wasnt talking about the whoke bible...i was referring to the gospel story. The contemporary writers did not reject the whole story, but they offered different versions of it

2. I didnt say the koran said Jesus died. But i do think it says he was crucified. I believe it says that Jesus swooned.

3. Jesus crucifixion WAS a big enough event ro have been noticed by the Jews and the local Roman guards. The Romans, who would have plenty of motive to deny the resurection ,would most certainly know where the tomb w
4. It is rediculous to believe that multiple people would martyr themselves knowing it was a hoax. Its strange what you so easily believe, but then what you refuse to believe.
But its your choice.

 

[Ken-1122]

kwing that the

1: I wasnt talking about the whoke bible...i was referring to the gospel story. The contemporary writers did not reject the whole story, but they offered different versions of it

The same can be said about the Koran

2. I didnt say the koran said Jesus died. But i do think it says he was crucified. I believe it says that Jesus swooned.

Naw it said he was God took him to heaven before the Jews could conspire against him

. It is rediculous to believe that multiple people would martyr themselves knowing it was a hoax. Its strange what you so easily believe, but then what you refuse to believe.
But its your choice.

The people who martyred themselves took other peoples words for it. Nobody actually saw Jesus rise from the dead but a few people claimed they saw him after he died and I don't think any of them were the martyrs

Ken

 

[oi_antz]

Rome is headquarters of the Catholic church! That’s where the pope stays; it doesn’t get any more Christian than that! They say the catholic church is the closest thing to what Peter started

It's not that close. It's 2,000 years apart. That means there is 2,000 years of questions that have been considered and incorporated into official doctrine. But that's a huge tangent. Actually what I was referring to was Constantinople:

Christian writers played up the idea that this was to be a 'new Rome', a fitting Christian capital for a newly Christian empire.

But they had to find ways to explain the embarrassing fact that in this new, supposedly Christian city, Constantine had erected pagan temples and statues.
​

This seems to me that either Constantine was not genuine in his faith, or that those who he was learning faith from were giving him incorrect information. Either way, it is not genuine Christian behavior, which leads me to believe that his conversion and acceptance of Christianity was probably politically motivated. The church is a different thing, and probably has more influence in Roman politics today than it did back then.

There is also another impression which I can't find right now, that I have drawn from past information, that the Christians in ancient Rome (post Constantine) did take advantage of the influence they had in society through religion. If I can remember where I read that, I will remember to find it for you.

However, while I have been looking into this, I have found that Constantine actually grew stronger toward Christ and against paganism, so I feel that I probably have to retract my former statement. The Christianity that Constantine adopted probably was genuine Christianity.

Yeah; but the fact that Rome is currently the most “Christian” spot on Earth and they have all this evidence that confirms some of the claims of Christianity kinda makes you wonder if there is an agenda somewhere in there

Agenda? Why not responsibility? And why do you suggest that just because they have accepted Christianity, their former governance did not destroy evidence?

I am not familiar with all the testimonies of Jesus witnesses. I guess it would be on a case by case basis

That's sensible. What would be your criteria for deciding whether you accept a statement to be true?

I guess we could have 100% of different shades of light; don’t know what you mean by 100% matter though; my point is evil is not necessary, so why allow it to become that kind of world

That's a question you should ask those who like to make it that kind of world. Do you think good and evil did not exist before the universe was made?

Even Hitler claimed he was doing Gods work; the most evil of humans convince themselves that they are not evil. I don’t know of anybody who lives in the real world that says they prefer evil over good; do you?

Ken

Even if they think the evil they do is good, their preference is for evil.

Isaiah 5
20 Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter.

Matthew 20
22 “The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are healthy,[c] your whole body will be full of light. 23 But if your eyes are unhealthy,[d] your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!

 

[Ken-1122]

Agenda? Why not responsibility?

Yeah; I suspect they are probably the same depending on which side of the issue you stand.

And why do you suggest that just because they have accepted Christianity, their former governance did not destroy evidence?

They probably did.

That's sensible. What would be your criteria for deciding whether you accept a statement to be true?

It would have to make sense to me. I would ask a bunch of questions and only after they have been answered to my satisfaction would I accept the evidence as true.

That's a question you should ask those who like to make it that kind of world.

I understand why people like you cannot stop evil; you are incapable of putting the "genie back into the bottle" (as they say) but my point is it shouldn't have been let out in the first place.

Do you think good and evil did not exist before the universe was made?

I don't believe the Universe was made. But to answer your question; I believe good and evil can only exist where intelligent life exists.

Even if they think the evil they do is good, their preference is for evil.

Their preference may be for evil, but they still prefer good. Example; there was a time in USA past when many people considered interacial relationships evil. I don't; as a matter of fact I believe in some cases it can be good. Those people would consider me prefering evil to good in that particular situation; but they would concede I prefer good over evil.

Ken

 

[Joshua260]

The same can be said about the Koran

Naw it said he was God took him to heaven before the Jews could conspire against him

The people who martyred themselves took other peoples words for it. Nobody actually saw Jesus rise from the dead but a few people claimed they saw him after he died and I don't think any of them were the martyrs

Ken

James, Stephen and Paul's martyrdom were written about in the New Testament and I don't know of anyone who has ever challenged their martyrdom. They all saw the risen Christ before they were martyred. These three were written about in the NT since the early church years and I don't know of any contemporary writer who has challenged those events. And the fact that their were 500 others there supports the idea that they could easily have squashed this faith before it ever got a chance to get off the ground. When 12 guys say a guy rose from the dead, but 500 others say no, they were lying, that says a lot. Yet even though these writings were published all over the ancient world, these events went unchallenged (except for the Jews and Muslims of course---although they did NOT challenge that Jesus existed and was put on a cross). What I mean by unchallenged is that I don't know of any contemporary writers who totally deny the entire gospel story. I've only seen modified versions of it offered by the Jews, Muslims, the Gnostics, etc. They all seem to AT LEAST support that there really was a man named Jesus and that he went around doing crazy things, talking about the kingdom of God, and his following grew (even saying he himself was God). Some say that he was a prophet, some acknowledge he resurrected, etc.

This is why I don't like evidence debates, which is what this is turning into to. There is simply no "smoking gun" that will end the discussion decisively either way. No matter what evidence I point you to, you will find some reason to dismiss it. But that's fine. I have never claimed that there was a "smoking gun" in Christianity. It's going to boil down to a decision of faith. I don't base my faith on one single piece of evidence, although I think the critical event to study IS the Resurrection. The case for faith is made on a preponderance of evidence.

So to illustrate again, I will list some "but then" questions that atheists have been coming up with for millenia:

But...there were no Hitties.
But...there was no David.
But...there was no Solomon.
But...there was no temple.
But...the Jews were not in Egypt.
But...there was no Nazareth.
But...there was no Pontius Pilate.
But...there was no tax that year.
But...the guards fell asleep.
But...no one would have known where the tomb was.

I don't know...I could pull out a book maybe and find more. This is just a list of the top of my head. But now all these things have evidential support that they really did exist.

But...Jesus didn't exist. (Yes, even Dawkins and others are finally admitting now that he really did exist.)
But...Hitler was a believer (remember that one?)
But...no Roman historians wrote about Jesus (another recent one)
But...no Roman wrote that he resurrected.
But...Rome didn't recognize rumors as true(OK, true...even though they (Ancient Rome) officially recognized Christianity itself as true).

So there's lots of evidence to support not only the OT, but the NT also. Then there's the philosophical evidence for God. And those make me wonder about atheism.

Why do atheists believe that the universe has no explanation for it's existence when everything else we experience does?
Why do atheists deny something caused the universe to come into being when everything else has a cause for it coming into being?
Why don't atheists believe in an objective morality when so many of us have an intuitive feeling that there is one...Science doesn't seem to be able to make a moral judgement call one way or the other.
Why do atheists believe that life came from non-life when we've never seen it happen even once and no one seems to be able to duplicate it?

So, I'm not trying to tell you that I have proven that Christianity is true. It's just that when I look at both sides of the issue, I feel that it just happens to be more plausibly true than false. If anything, I'm having a hard time believing in atheism. Many of us do, and that's why it seems to us that atheists seem to be forcing themselves to believe in atheism even when some things don't seem to support it at all. In view of many of the things I've listed above and more, it seems like atheists are taking a leap of faith in adopting such a world-view. But if Christianity is true, then that might explain why some people refuse to accept it. There's a "price to pay" in that they have to acknowledge their need for a savior and some people just don't want to admit that.

So anyway, I've answered your question. I believe the resurrection is the critical event that you've got to consider. There's a few books on the issue and you may find it interesting to read some of them. But in the end, you will have to decide whether to accept or deny the evidence presented. There's no smoking gun, so you're left with a faith decision. I wish you well, my friend!

After my initial version of this response, I edited in this info from the Quran:
"And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain". S. 4:157 Pickthall

The Quran says it appeared that Jesus died by crucifixion but Jesus did not, while the Bible says it appeared that Jesus died by crucifixion because he did. Muslims and the Christians have common ground in that both agree that it appeared that Jesus died by crucifixion.

 

[Ken-1122]

James, Stephen and Paul's martyrdom were written about in the New Testament and I don't know of anyone who has ever challenged their martyrdom. They all saw the risen Christ before they were martyred. These three were written about in the NT since the early church years and I don't know of any contemporary writer who has challenged those events. And the fact that their were 500 others there supports the idea that they could easily have squashed this faith before it ever got a chance to get off the ground. When 12 guys say a guy rose from the dead, but 500 others say no, they were lying, that says a lot. Yet even though these writings were published all over the ancient world, these events went unchallenged (except for the Jews and Muslims of course---although they did NOT challenge that Jesus existed and was put on a cross). What I mean by unchallenged is that I don't know of any contemporary writers who totally deny the entire gospel story.

They were not killed specifically because they claimed to see Jesus after he was executed; they were killed for spreading Christianity. IOW Their martyrdom does not confirm anything except that they believed in Jesus enough to die for that belief.

I've only seen modified versions of it offered by the Jews, Muslims, the Gnostics, etc. They all seem to AT LEAST support that there really was a man named Jesus and that he went around doing crazy things, talking about the kingdom of God,

I'm an atheist and I wouldn't even deny that!

So there's lots of evidence to support not only the OT, but the NT also. Then there's the philosophical evidence for God. And those make me wonder about atheism.
Why do atheists believe that the universe has no explanation for it's existence when everything else we experience does?
Why do atheists deny something caused the universe to come into being when everything else has a cause for it coming into being?
Why don't atheists believe in an objective morality when so many of us have an intuitive feeling that there is one...Science doesn't seem to be able to make a moral judgement call one way or the other.
Why do atheists believe that life came from non-life when we've never seen it happen even once and no one seems to be able to duplicate it?

I am sure there are plenty of Atheists around who believe something caused the Universe to come into being, believe in moral objectivity, deny life could come from non-life, and all that other stuff you mentioned in other words; everything you listed has nothiing to do with atheism Perhaps your reasons for wondering about atheism is because you dont know know about atheism.

But since I am an atheist I will address your questions, but realize these are just my point of view, I am in no way qualified to speak for all atheists, only myself.
1. Why do Atheists believe the universe has no explanation for it's existence when everything else we experience does?
I believe there is an explanation, we just don't know it yet.

2. Why do Atheists deny something caused the universe to come into being when everything else has a cause for it coming into being?
How do you know everything else has a cause for it coming into being? We don't know enough about the universe and everything in it to make such a statement

3.Why don't atheist believe in objective morality when so many of us have an intutive feeling that there is one?
Objective morality is a morality that doesn’t change according to environment, time, geography, etc.
I believe most people have moral opinions that are objective. These opinions vary from person to person example; A person may believe Homosexuality is immoral and as time goes by and the rest of society feels it is morally okay to be homosexual, if this person refuses to alter his opinions on the issue and continues to believe homosexual is immoral for the rest of his life, that was an objective moral issue for that person. Now of course a person can have the opposite view and have always believed homosexuality was okay even before society said it was okay and that would be an objective moral issue for that person as well. Two different objective moral opinions on the same issues.

Science doesn’t seem to be able to make a moral judgment call one way or the other.
Umm… What does science have to do with Atheism?

4.Why does atheist believe life came from non-life when we’ve never seen it happen even once and no one seems to be able to duplicate it?
We’ve never seen the Sun birth any of the Planets of our solar system, nor can we duplicate it; but that doesn’t mean evidence doesn’t point that direction.

So, I'm not trying to tell you that I have proven that Christianity is true. It's just that when I look at both sides of the issue, I feel that it just happens to be more plausibly true than false. If anything, I'm having a hard time believing in atheism. Many of us do, and that's why it seems to us that atheists seem to be forcing themselves to believe in atheism even when some things don't seem to support it at all.

I suspect this is directly related to the ignorance you and others have of Atheism.

In view of many of the things I've listed above and more, it seems like atheists are taking a leap of faith in adopting such a world-view. But if Christianity is true, then that might explain why some people refuse to accept it. There's a "price to pay" in that they have to acknowledge their need for a savior and some people just don't want to admit that.

If Christianity were proven true to my satisfaction; along with the threat of Hell-fire torture and all, I would be the first in line to accept it if for no other reason than the fear of torture.

[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']

[/FONT]

After my initial version of this response, I edited in this info from the Quran:
"And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain". S. 4:157 Pickthall

The Quran says it appeared that Jesus died by crucifixion but Jesus did not, while the Bible says it appeared that Jesus died by crucifixion because he did. Muslims and the Christians have common ground in that both agree that it appeared that Jesus died by crucifixion.

From my understanding there is disagreement among Muslims as to exactly what happened with Jesus. Some say his body was immortal thus he could not die, others say another person was made to appear like Jesus who was crucified while Jesus was taken to heaven, while some say Allah does not use deceit and the crucifixion never happened. Whatever the case, none of them claim Jesus died and was resurrected from the dead; only Christians believe that.

 

[oi_antz]

Yeah; I suspect they are probably the same depending on which side of the issue you stand.

So, you stand against Christ?

I understand why people like you cannot stop evil; you are incapable of putting the "genie back into the bottle" (as they say) but my point is it shouldn't have been let out in the first place.

What are you talking about?

I don't believe the Universe was made. But to answer your question; I believe good and evil can only exist where intelligent life exists.

Isn't it more that these are two opposing forces? Intelligent life only makes use of the resources they have, they don't make the resources.

Their preference may be for evil, but they still prefer good. Example; there was a time in USA past when many people considered interacial relationships evil. I don't; as a matter of fact I believe in some cases it can be good. Those people would consider me prefering evil to good in that particular situation; but they would concede I prefer good over evil.

Ken

You would have a hard time convincing me that interracial relationships are sinful because of the contrasting races.

 

[Ken-1122]

So, you stand against Christ?

I donnot stand for, nor do I stand against your Christ

What are you talking about?

My point about the Genie in the bottle was; if sin were prevented from spreading to earth (if the Genie were not let out of the bottle) it would be easier to contain.

Isn't it more that these are two opposing forces? Intelligent life only makes use of the resources they have, they don't make the resources.

Evil and good are not forces, they are just words we use to discribe behaviors



Ken

 

[Joshua260]

IOW Their martyrdom does not confirm anything except that they believed in Jesus enough to die for that belief.

Again, you missed the point. Yes they died for their belief, but the argument is that if the apostles knew that the whole Resurrection story was a fake and a lie, then they would have been dying for what they KNEW was a lie. And it's really difficult to believe that not only one but several of of them would have done that.

I am sure there are plenty of Atheists around who believe something caused the Universe to come into being, believe in moral objectivity, deny life could come from non-life, and all that other stuff you mentioned in other words; everything you listed has nothiing to do with atheism Perhaps your reasons for wondering about atheism is because you dont know know about atheism.

*Plenty of atheists* who believe that:
1)something outside of this universe caused it to come into being,
2)an objective morality,
3)and that life couldn't come from non-life?
Please name some.

1. Why do Atheists believe the universe has no explanation for it's existence when everything else we experience does?
I believe there is an explanation, we just don't know it yet.

So that's your belief, eh?

2. Why do Atheists deny something caused the universe to come into being when everything else has a cause for it coming into being?
How do you know everything else has a cause for it coming into being? We don't know enough about the universe and everything in it to make such a statement.

Name one thing that came into being un-caused. Just one please.

3.Why don't atheist believe in objective morality when so many of us have an intutive feeling that there is one?
Objective morality is a morality that doesn’t change according to environment, time, geography, etc.
I believe most people have moral opinions that are objective.

Objective means that something is a certain way no matter what ANY person thinks about it. Opinions have no bearing on it at all.

Science doesn’t seem to be able to make a moral judgment call one way or the other.
Umm… What does science have to do with Atheism?

Because the pure naturalist type of atheists only believe things exist that can measured. Yes, some atheists do not believe in God, but do allow for the ghosts, spirits, etc. I'm only referring here to the pure naturalist. For instance rape and incest seem to be universally recognized by humanity as objectively wrong. That is to say that we believe those acts are wrong no matter what any one's personal opinion is on the matter. But this kind of behaviour goes on all the time in the animal world. So how can so many of us seem to universally recognize that something is objectively wrong? If science only describes nature, and has no ability to recognize moral objectivity, the question is where does our ability to recognize an objective morality come from? FYI, many atheists admit that there is no way to say that something is objectively right or wrong, which is a respectable position for the atheist. For instance, yes, Dawkins has spoken out about bad stuff in this world, but then he also says about the existence of objective morality:
“there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. . . . We are machines for propagating DNA. . . . It is every living object’s sole reason for being.”

​

4.Why does atheist believe life came from non-life when we’ve never seen it happen even once and no one seems to be able to duplicate it?
We’ve never seen the Sun birth any of the Planets of our solar system, nor can we duplicate it; but that doesn’t mean evidence doesn’t point that direction.

Seriously? That's your rebuttal? BTW, there's a couple of theories about how the solar system formed, not just that one. Some people pick one theory to believe, others pick another. You know, I get this SAME exact question from atheists all the time when talking about a miracle or the Resurrection. Yet I get the old "double standard".

I suspect this is directly related to the ignorance you and others have of Atheism.

Friend, I was an atheist for most of my life.

If Christianity were proven true to my satisfaction; along with the threat of Hell-fire torture and all, I would be the first in line to accept it if for no other reason than the fear of torture.

Again, you missed the point. Some CHOOSE not to believe. And if you don't believe that, you can ask a few former atheists who are now Christians on this site. Several have admitted that they willingly denied Christ because they wanted to fulfill desires that were in direct contradiction to the commands of God. This is not me talking...listen to them.

From my understanding there is disagreement among Muslims as to exactly what happened with Jesus. Some say his body was immortal thus he could not die, others say another person was made to appear like Jesus who was crucified while Jesus was taken to heaven, while some say Allah does not use deceit and the crucifixion never happened. Whatever the case, none of them claim Jesus died and was resurrected from the dead; only Christians believe that.

Whatever. Did you not read the quote I copied from the Quran itself?

 

[Ken-1122]

Again, you missed the point. Yes they died for their belief, but the argument is that if the apostles knew that the whole Resurrection story was a fake and a lie, then they would have been dying for what they KNEW was a lie. And it's really difficult to believe that not only one but several of of them would have done that.

Just because you find it difficult to believe doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. They could have known they “fudged” the truth concerning the resurrection story but believed everything else about Jesus to the point of willing to die for it.

*Plenty of atheists* who believe that:
1)something outside of this universe caused it to come into being,
2)an objective morality,
3)and that life couldn't come from non-life?
Please name some.

You wouldn’t know them.

So that's your belief, eh?

Yes that is what I know. The explanation could be as simple as the Universe has always existed; which I believe is most likely the case.

Name one thing that came into being un-caused. Just one please.

I never said the Universe came into being; that’s YOUR claim

Objective means that something is a certain way no matter what ANY person thinks about it. Opinions have no bearing on it at all.

Even though we may have different opinions of Objective morality, I will go with your interpretation. It appears to me, you seem to be suggesting morality has an actual existence; morality is about opinions, and opinions do not exist outside of one’s head. Let me ask you something; if objective morality did not exist, how would the world be different than it is right now?

Because the pure naturalist type of atheists only believe things exist that can measured. Yes, some atheists do not believe in God, but do allow for the ghosts, spirits, etc. I'm only referring here to the pure naturalist.

I’ve never heard of a “naturalist atheist” is that something new?

For instance rape and incest seem to be universally recognized by humanity as objectively wrong. That is to say that we believe those acts are wrong no matter what any one's personal opinion is on the matter. But this kind of behaviour goes on all the time in the animal world.

We are human; we’re better than that

So how can so many of us seem to universally recognize that something is objectively wrong? If science only describes nature, and has no ability to recognize moral objectivity, the question is where does our ability to recognize an objective morality come from?

If we wouldn’t want it done to ourselves, we wouldn’t want it done to someone we care about.

FYI, many atheists admit that there is no way to say that something is objectively right or wrong, which is a respectable position for the atheist.

Lots of Christians feel that way as well.

Seriously? That's your rebuttal? BTW, there's a couple of theories about how the solar system formed, not just that one. Some people pick one theory to believe, others pick another. You know, I get this SAME exact question from atheists all the time when talking about a miracle or the Resurrection.

Yet I get the old "double standard".

Yes! It’s called “following the evidence” scientists don’t have to test everything in a lab or duplicate it in order to form theories.

Friend, I was an atheist for most of my life.

Judging from the questions you are asking and the claims you are making; I doubt it.

Again, you missed the point. Some CHOOSE not to believe. And if you don't believe that, you can ask a few former atheists who are now Christians on this site. Several have admitted that they willingly denied Christ because they wanted to fulfill desires that were in direct contradiction to the commands of God. This is not me talking...listen to them.

I actually knew a person who was like that. She was very angry at God, she was angry at her parents who were very religious. And she was very hostile towards Christianity in particular. Even though she would always tell anybody within shouting distance she didn’t believe in God and God belief was stupid;I believe she actually did believe in God, but she said she didn’t for the shock value; to get a rise from people. She was actually shocked that I was an atheist because I was almost the complete opposite of her; she was shocked that most of my Christian friends were completely unaware of my atheism. I lost contact with her a few years ago, but it wouldn’t surprise me if she eventually found peace within herself, released her anger and returned to Christianity. The problem with these type of people is they assume all atheists were like them when they went thru their little phase. Hopefully if she did return to Christianity, my influence on her taught her not all atheists were like her.

Ken

 

[Joshua260]

Just because you find it difficult to believe doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. They could have known they “fudged” the truth concerning the resurrection story but believed everything else about Jesus to the point of willing to die for it.

That's fine. You can choose to believe that people would willingly die for something they know is a lie. I think that's a highly irrational position to take, but you are free to believe that if you want.

You wouldn’t know them.

You made the claim so please indulge me. You said "I am sure there are plenty of Atheists around who believe":
1)something outside of this universe caused it to come into being,
2)an objective morality,
3)and that life couldn't come from non-life?
Again, please name some.

Yes that is what I know. The explanation could be as simple as the Universe has always existed...

Wow! No respectable scientist holds to an eternal universe theory anymore. Whether a single or multi-verse, the prevailing consensus among scientist is that all models have a necessary beginning.

morality is about opinions, and opinions do not exist outside of one’s head.

So, has slavery always been wrong in the US or only since 1865?

I’ve never heard of a “naturalist atheist” is that something new?

Nope. As I explained, some atheists ONLY believe in things that exist within our nature. Others do accept the super-natural. And you said I was ignorant of atheism!

We are human; we’re better than that

On what basis do you assert that?

If we wouldn’t want it done to ourselves, we wouldn’t want it done to someone we care about.

So our morality is dependent on whether we care about someone or not? So If I don't care about you, then it's morally OK to harm you?

Yes! It’s called “following the evidence” scientists don’t have to test everything in a lab or duplicate it in order to form theories.

Yet I have to reproduce a miracle or resurrect someone in order for it to be true that it happened before, right?

 

[Ken-1122]

That's fine. You can choose to believe that people would willingly die for something they know is a lie. I think that's a highly irrational position to take, but you are free to believe that if you want.

I didn't say that. They believed in Jesus! The fact that they chose to fudge the facts concerning Jesus with their claims does not make Jesus the lie, it makes them the lie. They didn't die for themselves, they died for Jesus.

You made the claim so please indulge me. You said "I am sure there are plenty of Atheists around who believe":
1)something outside of this universe caused it to come into being,
2)an objective morality,
3)and that life couldn't come from non-life?
Again, please name some.

1. I don't know of anyone who believes this who is Atheist but I suspect there are Atheists who may believe in multiuniveres and may claim our universe came from another and so fourth.
2. I believe in Objective morality, but my version of it; not yours.
3. I suspect life has always existed thus didn't come from non-life.

Wow! No respectable scientist holds to an eternal universe theory anymore. Whether a single or multi-verse, the prevailing consensus among scientist is that all models have a necessary beginning.

No respectable scientist holds on to the eternal God theory anymore either! What's your point? And why are you constantly bringing scientists into this conversation? I thought you religious types were a little more skeptical of science than that.

So, has slavery always been wrong in the US or only since 1865?

I believe it has always been wrong. But as I said before, right and wrong only exists in our heads; it doesn't have an actual physical existence.

On what basis do you assert that?

We do not act strictly on instinct; our intelligence allows us to go beyond that and have empthy for the other person.

So our morality is dependent on whether we care about someone or not? So If I don't care about you, then it's morally OK to harm you?

Morality only exists in our heads. The morality in your head may be different than the morality in mine. History has proven time and time again that if you can dehumanize me to the point that you no longer care about me as a fellow human being, it becomes easier to commit atrocities against me.

Yet I have to reproduce a miracle or resurrect someone in order for it to be true that it happened before, right?

No! The resurrection is true of false weather you can reproduce it or not. I said theories are formed by following the evidence. The evidence you have concerning the resurrection is in your Bible and billions of people believe this evidence without reproducing a miracle or resurrecting someone. It's just when I look at that evidence, I find it lacking.


Ken

PS You neglected to answer my question; If Objective morality did NOT exist; how would things be different than they are right now?

 

[oi_antz]

I donnot stand for, nor do I stand against your Christ

Christ is a divisive issue, do you say it is agenda or responsibility?

My point about the Genie in the bottle was; if sin were prevented from spreading to earth (if the Genie were not let out of the bottle) it would be easier to contain.

That might be so (keeping in mind that the tree being there is the real problem), but it would probably be harder to identify those who prefer sin if not given the chance to make that decision.

Evil and good are not forces, they are just words we use to discribe behaviors

Ken

I don't agree with that. Behaviours are patterns of decisions. There are forces for and against each decision we make.

 

[oi_antz]

Morality only exists in our heads. The morality in your head may be different than the morality in mine. History has proven time and time again that if you can dehumanize me to the point that you no longer care about me as a fellow human being, it becomes easier to commit atrocities against me.

Doesn't this put us on a new path RE your OP?

 

[Joshua260]

I didn't say that. They believed in Jesus! The fact that they chose to fudge the facts concerning Jesus with their claims does not make Jesus the lie, it makes them the lie. They didn't die for themselves, they died for Jesus.

Wow! It's amazing that you still don't seem to understand what the point of the argument here is. Several people who were martyred reported that they saw the Resurrected Jesus. But if Jesus did NOT really resurrect, then they were knowingly lying and went to their deaths knowing it was a lie. So, yes maybe that actually did that, but it seems to be an irrational position to take in order to deny the Resurrection. But again, your choice.

1. I don't know of anyone who believes this who is Atheist but I suspect there are Atheists who may believe in multiuniveres and may claim our universe came from another and so fourth.
2. I believe in Objective morality, but my version of it; not yours.
3. I suspect life has always existed thus didn't come from non-life.

Well, I would have liked to have had some names since you made the claim. Since you cannot list any atheists who deny the following, are you just choosing to deny them based on faith alone?
1)something outside of this universe caused it to come into being,
2)an objective morality,
3)and that life couldn't come from non-life?

No respectable scientist holds on to the eternal God theory anymore either! What's your point? And why are you constantly bringing scientists into this conversation? I thought you religious types were a little more skeptical of science than that.

We're not skeptical at all of science. Science only describes nature. My point was simply that you said "The explanation could be as simple as the Universe has always existed..." and I was just correcting you on that. There ARE scientist who are Christian you know. But I don't know of ANY scientist secular OR religious who holds to an eternal universe theory anymore. The evidence is weighing heavily in favor of a beginning, no matter which theory you choose. So to remind you, the question was "[FONT=&quot]Why do atheists believe that the universe has no explanation for it's existence when everything else we experience does?" Many of them say that the Big Bang was "uncaused". I'm trying to figure out why they make that exemption when everything else that comes into being [/FONT]has a cause. Everything that exists seems to have an explanation for its existence. But when we get to what caused our universe to come into being, they make an exemption and claim that it must have been "uncaused".

I believe it has always been wrong. But as I said before, right and wrong only exists in our heads; it doesn't have an actual physical existence.

Wow! You sound just like Dawkins now. Ok. If right and wrong is only in our heads, and we lived back in the South before 1865, then would slavery have been morally acceptable?

We do not act strictly on instinct; our intelligence allows us to go beyond that and have empthy for the other person.

We can certainly make moral judgements...no argument there. I'm asking how do we judge whether our moral judgements are correct or not. Think about when Hitler convinced so many Germans that the Jews were less than human. So we had a whole nation of homo sapiens who had one set of morals and a whole other nation of homo sapiens who had a different set of morals. You would think that both had evolved equally wouldn't you? So the question is why were they different and my follow up would be how do we know that we are not NOW being influenced to think wrong again?

Morality only exists in our heads. The morality in your head may be different than the morality in mine. History has proven time and time again that if you can dehumanize me to the point that you no longer care about me as a fellow human being, it becomes easier to commit atrocities against me.

Again, no argument that we can make moral judgements. I'm asking where do any moral obligations come from? For example, it may be good that I help my neighbor mow his lawn, but I'm not necessarily OBLIGATED to help him. So why should I?

The evidence you have concerning the resurrection is in your Bible and billions of people believe this evidence without reproducing a miracle or resurrecting someone. It's just when I look at that evidence, I find it lacking.

This is what I mean. You keep saying the wrong things over and over again. I have listed for you several evidences OUTSIDE of the bible that support that the Resurrection happened.

Ok fine. You looked at the evidence (thanks for admitting that there actually IS evidence), and you find that it is not enough to convince you. That's a fair response. You can choose not to believe it.

PS You neglected to answer my question; If Objective morality did NOT exist; how would things be different than they are right now?

Sorry, I did not see that. Well, it seems to me that a lot of our moral judgements through history have been made according to the prevailing belief systems. For example, the US founding fathers justified their decision to break from Britain based on a belief in a moral authority. The bill of rights assumes a moral authority also. Also, Lincoln based his belief that slavery was wrong on a verse from Genesis that each man should bare the sweat if his OWN brow and not that of another's. In each of these cases, we appealed to what we believed to be a higher moral authority. I can't really say what things would be like if an objective morality didn't exist. To me, it is apparent that it does and we humans are getting better at figuring out what that is. For example, I think many of us have finally figured out that slavery is wrong, and has always been wrong, even before 1865.

 

[Ken-1122]

Christ is a divisive issue, do you say it is agenda or responsibility?

I would say christianity is a belief. To spread it would be an agenda

That might be so (keeping in mind that the tree being there is the real problem), but it would probably be harder to identify those who prefer sin if not given the chance to make that decision

.
What's wrong with that?

I don't agree with that. Behaviours are patterns of decisions. There are forces for and against each decision we make.

Can you detect these forces with any of your 5 sences?

K

 

[Ken-1122]

Doesn't this put us on a new path RE your OP?

No; the OP is about sin. That is something the Bible is very specific about; not just something that exist only in your head.

KEn

 

[Ken-1122]

Well, I would have liked to have had some names since you made the claim. Since you cannot list any atheists who deny the following, are you just choosing to deny them based on faith alone?

I have heard of people like Hutchison, or Dawkins, but I have never read any of their books, I never saw them on TV so I am unfamiliar with their point of view on issues. The only thing I know about them is that they are atheists. The atheists I know are people like you and me; have never written books, never debated on college campuses, etc. Just regular people. If I gave you his name, What good is it going to do you if you or nobody else has ever heard of him?

1)something outside of this universe caused it to come into being,
2)an objective morality,
3)and that life couldn't come from non-life?

1.Universe is defined as “all that exists” to suggest something could be outside of that doesn’t make sense to me because if it exists, it would have to be a part of the universe.
2 Your definition of “objective morality” doesn’t make sense to me because morality exists only inside one head.
3. I don’t claim life came from non-life because nobody has explained it to me in a way that makes sense. If someone were to do that then I would begin to believe it.

We're not skeptical at all of science. Science only describes nature. My point was simply that you said "The explanation could be as simple as the Universe has always existed..." and I was just correcting you on that. There ARE scientist who are Christian you know. But I don't know of ANY scientist secular OR religious who holds to an eternal universe theory anymore. The evidence is weighing heavily in favor of a beginning, no matter which theory you choose. So to remind you, the question was "[FONT=&quot]Why do atheists believe that the universe has no explanation for it's existence when everything else we experience does?" Many of them say that the Big Bang was "uncaused". I'm trying to figure out why they make that exemption when everything else that comes into being [/FONT]has a cause. Everything that exists seems to have an explanation for its existence. But when we get to what caused our universe to come into being, they make an exemption and claim that it must have been "uncaused".

Tell you what; when you can tell me what caused God to exist; or what caused him to come into being; I will do the same for the Universe.

Wow! You sound just like Dawkins now. Ok. If right and wrong is only in our heads, and we lived back in the South before 1865, then would slavery have been morally acceptable?

In our heads during that time, it probably would have been.

We can certainly make moral judgements...no argument there. I'm asking how do we judge whether our moral judgements are correct or not. Think about when Hitler convinced so many Germans that the Jews were less than human. So we had a whole nation of homo sapiens who had one set of morals and a whole other nation of homo sapiens who had a different set of morals. You would think that both had evolved equally wouldn't you? So the question is why were they different and my follow up would be how do we know that we are not NOW being influenced to think wrong again?

Hitler didn’t have to convince Germans of anything. Anti-Semitism was very big in Germany before Hitler; and it was very big in the USA as well! Hitler just played into what they already believed. And most Germans were unaware of what was going on in the death camps.

Again, no argument that we can make moral judgements. I'm asking where do any moral obligations come from? For example, it may be good that I help my neighbor mow his lawn, but I'm not necessarily OBLIGATED to help him. So why should I?

Those moral obligations come from within your head.

This is what I mean. You keep saying the wrong things over and over again. I have listed for you several evidences OUTSIDE of the bible that support that the Resurrection happened.

What evidences outside the Bible did you list that support the resurrection happened? I don’t remember you doing this.

Ok fine. You looked at the evidence (thanks for admitting that there actually IS evidence), and you find that it is not enough to convince you. That's a fair response. You can choose not to believe it.

I never denyed Christians precieve what is written in the Bible as evidence.

Sorry, I did not see that. Well, it seems to me that a lot of our moral judgements through history have been made according to the prevailing belief systems. For example, the US founding fathers justified their decision to break from Britain based on a belief in a moral authority. The bill of rights assumes a moral authority also. Also, Lincoln based his belief that slavery was wrong on a verse from Genesis that each man should bare the sweat if his OWN brow and not that of another's. In each of these cases, we appealed to what we believed to be a higher moral authority. I can't really say what things would be like if an objective morality didn't exist. To me, it is apparent that it does and we humans are getting better at figuring out what that is. For example, I think many of us have finally figured out that slavery is wrong, and has always been wrong, even before 1865.

So you are saying if “objective morality” did not exist, you don’t know how things would be different? Do you think perhaps everything would be the same?

Ken

 

[oi_antz]

I would say christianity is a belief. To spread it would be an agenda

Do you consider that encouraging people to trust and obey Jesus is a responsibility or agenda? And if you say it is an agenda, is it always an agenda rather than responsibility?

.
What's wrong with that?

John 10:1 && John 10:10

Very truly I tell you Pharisees, anyone who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber.

The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy;

Can you detect these forces with any of your 5 sences?

K

Sometimes yes, when the force is represented by an external entity, such as a peer or when considering external information in context of it's relevance to the decision. However, when the mind is considering information from the memory only, the forces can only be sensed internally.

How would you describe the internal forces of the mind that argue for and against when making a decision?

No; the OP is about sin. That is something the Bible is very specific about; not just something that exist only in your head.

KEn

Do you think that the biblical definition of sin does not discourage dehumanization?

 

[Joshua260]

I have heard of people like Hutchison, or Dawkins, but I have never read any of their books, I never saw them on TV so I am unfamiliar with their point of view on issues. The only thing I know about them is that they are atheists. The atheists I know are people like you and me; have never written books, never debated on college campuses, etc. Just regular people. If I gave you his name, What good is it going to do you if you or nobody else has ever heard of him?

Wow! And you said I was ignorant about atheism! Well, that's ok. But it would help when you make grand claims like you did to actually have some credible backing. I seem to remember you saying the same to me...something about big claims require big evidence or something like that.

1.Universe is defined as “all that exists” to suggest something could be outside of that doesn’t make sense to me because if it exists, it would have to be a part of the universe.
2 Your definition of “objective morality” doesn’t make sense to me because morality exists only inside one head.
3. I don’t claim life came from non-life because nobody has explained it to me in a way that makes sense. If someone were to do that then I would begin to believe it.

1. Well as I said, all of our experience is that everything that exists has some kind of explanation for it's existence. I understand that it(something outside of our universe creating it) doesn't make sense to you because you think it would have to be part of our universe. That's exactly the point! Bravo to you. How can something WITHIN the universe create the universe? So the suggestion is that something OUTSIDE of the universe created it. At this point I won't press for the Christian God, but only to suggest to you that the question were talking about indicates the possibility of something supernatural, or outside of our nature.
2. I disagree that morality exists only inside our head, but decline to discuss that further right now. We seem to be at an impass and that is a very deep subject.
3. OK. Every atheist I can think of though believes life came from non-life, but they can't seem to explain how it happened through natural processes.

Tell you what; when you can tell me what caused God to exist; or what caused him to come into being; I will do the same for the Universe.

As we discussed about the theories of the beginning of the universe (as well as the Big Bang and background radiation evidence), the universe "began to exist". God is a necessary being and did not "begin to exist" like the universe. God, having created space-time, existed before it and outside of it and he is therefore timeless. There is no "time" when he did not exist.

What evidences outside the Bible did you list that support the resurrection happened?

Oye! Do you remember me telling you of the Roman historians who wrote about it, also the Jews and Muslims? We just talked about this!! Also the spread of the church, the conviction of the apostle's, and the fact that ancient Rome accepted the accounts as true.

Look, I strongly suggest that you check out Lee Strobel's book the Case for Christ. (Some popular atheists like to harshly criticize Strobel, but he's only an author, not a theologian. His books contain collections of interviews from actual theologians. These are good books for the novice because they contain info from many different people. Those popular atheists I'm referring to are just trying to "shoot the messenger" so to speak.)Also, the book Evidence that demands a Verdict is pretty all-encompassing also.

So you are saying if “objective morality” did not exist, you don’t know how things would be different? Do you think perhaps everything would be the same?

I'm saying that sure, people CAN be moral. But that's not the issue. The issue is not about what WE think is right or wrong; it's about what really IS right and wrong. Look at the slave owners and Hitler and so forth. They weren't morally good were they? What if the South had won or Hitler had won? Do you think the US might be different if it were established by Hindus or Muslims? I'm saying that 1) we THINK we know what's morality right or wrong and 2) there really IS a real moral right and wrong. They don't always match. For example, slavery has always been wrong no matter whether we lived in the 1700s or now.

I am tired!!! Have a good nite!