why do athiests hate us?

[thelordislord]

i was talking to a co-worker at the office about 3 months ago, and we got to discussing faith. i told him im a Christian, he said he was an atheist. now, normally i would have said something, because as we all know, atheists are all going to hell. but, i like my job, so i kept the truth to my self. he however, didnt have the good grace to do the same. i got an earfull to say the least. so i just kept my mouth shut, even though i wanted to scream. later i brought it up with my boss. long story short, the atheist has now been fired (in a related note, his wife and kids left him, and he has since become a alcoholic vagrant). but this incident got me thinking... why do atheists hate us so much? iv been attending church all my life, and iv never heard of a Christian pushing their faith on others, or putting down others because of their faith. in my experience, Christians are the most accepting of differences in others. why cant they treat us with the same respect? :help:

[Phild3v1ll3]

You ask why atheists hate you? They don't, I reckon the atheists you've encountered were simply curious as to why you would believe in god and the bible. Some atheists might also be annoyed at the fact that you do try to force your views on other people. Now you will say, you never forced anyone. Well, in all honesty you have to admit that you did. How can you say that you have the most tolerance when you hate homosexuals, scientists and atheists. How did you come to the conclusion that the bible is the truth? And how can you blame someone who read Darwin's theories and all the scientific research papers that followed it, instead of the bible? How do explain that people brought up to other religions or the belief of no religion will believe in what they were brought with? How do you know what the bible tells you is the truth? Because it tells you it is? Well so does the Thora, the Koran and any scientific paper you will ever read.

You might think atheists hate you, but whats really going on is that they're just trying to understand WHY you believe what you believe in. I can't promise that every atheist will tolerate your views just like you can't promise me that christians will not hate me for being atheist. I would love to have answers to all the questions I asked but I appreciate the fact that no one will bother to spend the time to explain to me WHY?!? I would believe in Jesus and christianity if anyone could prove anything about the bible or god to me but no one has. Instead I could go to a lab and prove anything from evolution to the earths position in relation to the sun to myself.

Thanks! Please Help me!

[NewGuy101]

You ask why atheists hate you? They don't, I reckon the atheists you've encountered were simply curious as to why you would believe in god and the bible. Some atheists might also be annoyed at the fact that you do try to force your views on other people. Now you will say, you never forced anyone. Well, in all honesty you have to admit that you did. How can you say that you have the most tolerance when you hate homosexuals, scientists and atheists. How did you come to the conclusion that the bible is the truth? And how can you blame someone who read Darwin's theories and all the scientific research papers that followed it, instead of the bible? How do explain that people brought up to other religions or the belief of no religion will believe in what they were brought with? How do you know what the bible tells you is the truth? Because it tells you it is? Well so does the Thora, the Koran and any scientific paper you will ever read.

You might think atheists hate you, but whats really going on is that they're just trying to understand WHY you believe what you believe in. I can't promise that every atheist will tolerate your views just like you can't promise me that christians will not hate me for being atheist. I would love to have answers to all the questions I asked but I appreciate the fact that no one will bother to spend the time to explain to me WHY?!? I would believe in Jesus and christianity if anyone could prove anything about the bible or god to me but no one has. Instead I could go to a lab and prove anything from evolution to the earths position in relation to the sun to myself.

Thanks! Please Help me!
World views naturally collide, I have atheist try to shove their world view down my throat all the time. And you cannot believe something supernatural based on your naturalistic presuppositions hence evolution.

[desmalia]

now, normally i would have said something, because as we all know, atheists are all going to hell.
This statement troubles me. None of us knows who ends up in heaven or hell in the end. Don't forget, even C.S. Lewis was once an Atheist. We can't assume that because someone is Atheist, they automatically go to hell, no matter what. We don't know if or when someone will hear God's call and believe in Him. We all start off lost.

What good is forcing beliefs on anyone? No Atheist ever forced a Christian out of the Kingdom, and no Christian ever forced an Atheist into it. Ever.

Non-Christians can sometimes hate us, and for all kinds of reasons. Sometimes it's because they have misconceptions and generalizations that have been made from a bad experience or something they've seen in the media (you know, like when they all assume we hate gays or Muslims, or whatever...). Often it's simply a matter of hating Christ, and therefore us. Regardless, we know that this will happen from Scripture. Consider it all joy when we encounter various trials for His sake, right?

Instead of questioning why your coworker hated you, why not pray for him and see if you can help him at all? Sounds like things have gone very badly for him. It could be a great opportunity to show him compassion and mercy.

[Ithinkimightbeanathiest]

I'm sorry about the experience you had with that atheist, but it does sound like he was generally not a winner. I would like to say that not all atheists dislike Christians. As some have already stated, many are genuinely curious about why you believe what you do, and not everyone knows how to ask questions about faith in the most respectful manner.

You say you've never heard of a Christian pushing their faith on others, but you also state:
now, normally i would have said something, because as we all know, atheists are all going to hell.

Which sounds like you might normally say something that they could interpret as questioning their beliefs. I'm afraid in my personal experience I've encountered many wonderful Christians, but more than a few who aggressively try to push their faith on me. I know it must be awful to see someone who you believe needs to be saved, but it can be *very* unpleasant to be on the other end of some people's good intentions.

I think atheists can get a real chip on their shoulder by being told all about how they're a sinner and are going to Hell. It really is the worst way to go about trying to convert someone! The average atheist believes they are a good person. I think I am: I respect my parents, go to school, don't drink, don't do drugs, volunteer all the time etc. Being told I'm going to Hell really makes me feel like you don't care at all about my values and the work that I do. It's really not nice to be belittled like that and can definitely lead to the "I'm a good person and if God does exist and would throw me in Hell simply because I was born into a family without religion why would I want to believe in that" attitude that I've definitely seen in the student body at my school.

I think that it's more an issue of accidentally saying things with good intentions that are misinterpreted than not liking each other.

[Christian Soldier]

How can you say that you have the most tolerance when you hate homosexuals, scientists and atheists.

Are you referring to the person who started the thread, or Christians in general?

Either way, your statement is totally bogus. Please stop using straw man arguments and "poisoning the well" tactics.

By the way, at least 40% of trained scientists are THEISTS, the vast majority of them CHRISTIANS. Are you claiming they hate themselves?! :D ^_^

[Christian Soldier]

This statement troubles me. None of us knows who ends up in heaven or hell in the end. Don't forget, even C.S. Lewis was once an Atheist. We can't assume that because someone is Atheist, they automatically go to hell, no matter what. We don't know if or when someone will hear God's call and believe in Him. We all start off lost.

You clearly missed the OP's point.

It doesn't matter how we "start off". It's what we are when we DIE that counts. If one is an atheist when they die, they WILL go to Hell. That is what the OP was referring to.

[DarwinsChainsaw]

i was talking to a co-worker at the office about 3 months ago, and we got to discussing faith. i told him im a Christian, he said he was an atheist. now, normally i would have said something, because as we all know, atheists are all going to hell. but, i like my job, so i kept the truth to my self. he however, didnt have the good grace to do the same. i got an earfull to say the least. so i just kept my mouth shut, even though i wanted to scream. later i brought it up with my boss. long story short, the atheist has now been fired (in a related note, his wife and kids left him, and he has since become a alcoholic vagrant). but this incident got me thinking... why do atheists hate us so much? iv been attending church all my life, and iv never heard of a Christian pushing their faith on others, or putting down others because of their faith. in my experience, Christians are the most accepting of differences in others. why cant they treat us with the same respect? :help:
Maybe what you mean to ask is why do SOME atheists hate you. Its discrimination to think that all atheists hate you just because one did.

Some christians hate atheists I'm sure. Some atheists do hate christians but these atheists are the inconsiderare people which neither side really wants.

Furthermore, to an atheist (or agnostic like me) the thought that you as a chistian think we will deservedly get an eternity of torture when we die is a bit unsettling.

[BigNorsk]

I'm sorry, it's probably just the condensed version of events as you presented them but I have trouble getting my mind around.

1. There was this atheist at your workplace.
2. He found out you were Christian and so he said a bunch of things about his beliefs.
3. You said nothing.
4. You went to your boss and contributed to getting him fired.

I have trouble reconciling your behavior with loving him. We are to love our enemies. In addition we are not told to keep our mouth shut, but rather to make disciples of all nations.

I really think you owe him an apology and you should be helping him, not being apparently happy that his life is in ruins. Maybe he is now ready to listen to what you didn't share before, he is certainly a broken person laying by the path of life. Isn't the Christian thing to do to bind his wounds and care for him?

How about a little love?

Marv

[desmalia]

You clearly missed the OP's point.
Oh, don't you worry. I didn't miss the point.
The idea of seeing an Atheist and thinking "he's going to hell for sure. He's not worth my time. He got what was coming to him when he got fired." is a horrible attitude. Now if the post was simply typed poorly and that is not what the OP meant, then I hope he'll come back and clear things up. But it's sure how he came across.

It doesn't matter how we "start off". It's what we are when we DIE that counts. If one is an atheist when they die, they WILL go to Hell. That is what the OP was referring to.
I don't disagree with you there, but I don't think that's what the OP was saying. As I said, I hope he'll come back and clarify. As it stands, it's not looking too good.

[NewGuy101]

Maybe what you mean to ask is why do SOME atheists hate you. Its discrimination to think that all atheists hate you just because one did.

Some christians hate atheists I'm sure. Some atheists do hate christians but these atheists are the inconsiderare people which neither side really wants.

Furthermore, to an atheist (or agnostic like me) the thought that you as a chistian think we will deservedly get an eternity of torture when we die is a bit unsettling.
No real Christian could hate an atheist since they would be violating Jesus own comandments. And yes you do deserve an eternity of turture WE ALL DO but we are saved by Grace which you rejected.

[quiller]

but this incident got me thinking... why do atheists hate us so much?

As has been mentioned already, but deserves repeating: what leads you to believe that atheists "hate" Christians? Obviously such opinions differ from individual to individual, but what about this incident supports your co-workers "hatred" of you and/or Christianity? It sounds like there was a discussion of faith and he shared his personal views.

iv been attending church all my life, and iv never heard of a Christian pushing their faith on others,

This one I can't ignore. Without knowing anything beyond your identification as a Christian, how can you not see the pushy nature of Christianity? Have you ever informed someone they are going to hell? Have you ever preached at or otherwise attempted to convert a non-Christian? Have you ever witnessed somebody else doing these things? Are these not examples of "pushing [one's] faith on others"?

or putting down others because of their faith.The assumption that non-Christians are going to spend eternity in horrible, excruciating pain definitely qualifies as an offensive statement. Nothing else is needed to support Christians being capable of "putting down others" based on someone's beliefs (or lack thereof).

All of the above being said: I'm an atheist, but I don't harbor any ill feelings towards Christians (or any other religious groups) just because they believe something I don't. I think I'm right and the other groups are wrong, just like Christians, and if given the opportunity I will explain and debate the issues, just like Christians. From my perspective, there is not an unfair share of the guilt: some non-Christians are unnecessarily unkind to Christians, and vice versa.

[Lisa0315]

i was talking to a co-worker at the office about 3 months ago, and we got to discussing faith. i told him im a Christian, he said he was an atheist. now, normally i would have said something, because as we all know, atheists are all going to hell. but, i like my job, so i kept the truth to my self. he however, didnt have the good grace to do the same. i got an earfull to say the least. so i just kept my mouth shut, even though i wanted to scream. later i brought it up with my boss. long story short, the atheist has now been fired (in a related note, his wife and kids left him, and he has since become a alcoholic vagrant). but this incident got me thinking... why do atheists hate us so much? iv been attending church all my life, and iv never heard of a Christian pushing their faith on others, or putting down others because of their faith. in my experience, Christians are the most accepting of differences in others. why cant they treat us with the same respect? :help:

Well, the fact that you reported him and got him fired might be a clue. He was unafraid to do what you should have done with boldness. Second, had you not reported him, you may have had many more conversations with him in which you could have shared your faith.

Atheists do not hate Christians, but they do hate the hypocrisy that we display. I hate to tell you this, but in my opinion, what you did was exactly the kind of thing that causes people to lose faith or never find it.

This was a moment in which you should have turned the other cheek and heaped coals of love upon his head. You messed up, dude.

Lisa

[Indrid Cold]

OP:

Given what occurred I am not surprised that you perceive that you were hated. At all. I just met you and I don't like you.

[Criada]

Am I the only one who thinks that the OP is a deliberate inversion of what he perceives to be the attitude of atheists?

[Lisa0315]

Am I the only one who thinks that the OP is a deliberate inversion of what he perceives to be the attitude of atheists?

Nope.

[NewGuy101]

I hate everyone! Especially fundies!

[desmalia]

Am I the only one who thinks that the OP is a deliberate inversion of what he perceives to be the attitude of atheists?
I considered it a posibility, but gave him the benifit of the doubt. The fact that he hasn't been back to respond says a lot though.

[quiller]

I hate everyone! Especially fundies!

That's not a problem. Hate is a relative emotion (to things you love), so hating everything resets you to neutral.

[clean333]

Athiests hate us because they already smell the pitch and sulfur of the cauldron their soul will spend eternity in. You cant argue with an idiot. He knows where hes going, but still heads in that path. Stupid people never listen. You can tell them a million times what the truth is, but they will shrug it off. If only we had like a video, or a picture or something to prove tha7t they are wrong. Its hard to change the mind of someone with no faith.

[Lisa0315]

Athiests hate us because they already smell the pitch and sulfur of the cauldron their soul will spend eternity in. You cant argue with an idiot. He knows where hes going, but still heads in that path. Stupid people never listen. You can tell them a million times what the truth is, but they will shrug it off. If only we had like a video, or a picture or something to prove tha7t they are wrong. Its hard to change the mind of someone with no faith.

You will find that most atheists are not stupid...far from it in fact.

Lisa

[DrFeelGood]

This statement troubles me. None of us knows who ends up in heaven or hell in the end. Don't forget, even C.S. Lewis was once an Atheist. We can't assume that because someone is Atheist, they automatically go to hell, no matter what. We don't know if or when someone will hear God's call and believe in Him. We all start off lost.

What good is forcing beliefs on anyone? No Atheist ever forced a Christian out of the Kingdom, and no Christian ever forced an Atheist into it. Ever.

Non-Christians can sometimes hate us, and for all kinds of reasons. Sometimes it's because they have misconceptions and generalizations that have been made from a bad experience or something they've seen in the media (you know, like when they all assume we hate gays or Muslims, or whatever...). Often it's simply a matter of hating Christ, and therefore us. Regardless, we know that this will happen from Scripture. Consider it all joy when we encounter various trials for His sake, right?

Instead of questioning why your coworker hated you, why not pray for him and see if you can help him at all? Sounds like things have gone very badly for him. It could be a great opportunity to show him compassion and mercy.


If only more thought like you. For me, I am going to hell, I know that, and I am quite comfortable with it. In FACT, my wife and I joke all the time about how we are both going to hell, if it exists. I have done things in my life, mostly while in the military, or at least technically enlisted, but still serving our corrupt and idiotic government, that have ensured my fall. I don't believe in god and never will, because I can't prove it, and the things I have seen have made it impossible for me to believe in "loving" creator.....When someone shows me concrete, verifiable, reproducible laboratory evidence, then I might change my mind. Until then, my wife, who is a nonpracticing lutheran, and I will disagree on it. My daughter will be told my beliefs, and my wife's, and be allowed to form her OWN opinions later. YMMV:sleep:

[cubanito]

This thread is rapidly going nowhere.

The OP came by, dropped a story and left, and now the thread is a tangle.

Marv may be correct, or perhaps the atheist's attitude was not conducive to any meaningful discussion, and the OP's actions appropiate. I don;t think we know, nor does it matter to the general point. One incident does not a pattern make.

JR

[christFORTHEWIN]

First of all, I feel the need to point out Atheists don't hate you, and saying so is a huge generalization.

Second of all, did you ever think that perhaps telling the atheist population that they're all going to hell based on their beliefs could be considered offensive? Atheism is very similar to Christianity in many respects, it is a way of thinking. Of believing. And since this whole ordeal is based off of a system of beliefs and not facts, no one has any right to condone anyone else.

Nobody knows for sure what happens after we die. Or even if anything happens at all. It is all based on a belief. But that's a whole other argument.

[quiller]

Atheism is very similar to Christianity in many respects, it is a way of thinking. Of believing.

I appreciate the attempt, and I think I understand where this confusion arises from, but that's not a fair comparison. Atheism isn't really a thing, there's no set of "beliefs" one has to hold to be considered a card-carrying atheist. There aren't any tenets or articles of faith that atheists share. The only thing that begins to group atheists into one coherent group is their agreement that their isn't a god that created and then ruled over the world we live in. You can't define a belief system by what they don't believe in, especially if that category only includes one element.

In reality: the term "atheist" exists only to differentiate from religious people (the vast majority of the Earth's population).

On the other hand, if you meant to say that Christians are very similar to atheists (in many respects), then I agree. We're both homo sapiens sapien, we both walk upright, we both enjoy the company of other humans, we both eat and drink the same things, we both get the same diseases, etc. More importantly, of course: nobody likes to be told they are going to be punished for not believing in something, especially when they are literally thousands of alternative choices.

[shrewdsnake]

Some people need to hate others. Doesn't matter that your Christian so much as it's something they are not they can pounce on. More than likely the person would have found something else to go off on if you had said you were an atheist. In the long run does it really matter if they do hate Christians or not?

[NewGuy101]

If only more thought like you. For me, I am going to hell, I know that, and I am quite comfortable with it. In FACT, my wife and I joke all the time about how we are both going to hell, if it exists. I have done things in my life, mostly while in the military, or at least technically enlisted, but still serving our corrupt and idiotic government, that have ensured my fall. I don't believe in god and never will, because I can't prove it, and the things I have seen have made it impossible for me to believe in "loving" creator.....When someone shows me concrete, verifiable, reproducible laboratory evidence, then I might change my mind. Until then, my wife, who is a nonpracticing lutheran, and I will disagree on it. My daughter will be told my beliefs, and my wife's, and be allowed to form her OWN opinions later. YMMV:sleep:

Can you show me concrete lab evidence that proves to me atheism? Thank you.

[Ithinkimightbeanathiest]

Can you show me concrete lab evidence that proves to me atheism? Thank you.

Of course I can't! Just like you can't provide concrete lab evidence for anything else. For many atheists that's part of the point of being an atheist. Science isn't in the proving business anyway (I can only *disprove*). I'm left looking at a vacuum of 'lab evidence' and trying to figure out what I think is *likely* going on.

[NewGuy101]

Of course I can't! Just like you can't provide concrete lab evidence for anything else. For many atheists that's part of the point of being an atheist. Science isn't in the proving business anyway (I can only *disprove*). I'm left looking at a vacuum of 'lab evidence' and trying to figure out what I think is *likely* going on.
So you dont think its likely that a all powerful God created such a complex world which works coherently and smoothly? Not only that but generated a book which provides all the answers purposeful life and ethics?

[PansyLad]

i was talking to a co-worker at the office about 3 months ago, and we got to discussing faith. i told him im a Christian, he said he was an atheist. now, normally i would have said something, because as we all know, atheists are all going to hell. but, i like my job, so i kept the truth to my self. he however, didnt have the good grace to do the same. i got an earfull to say the least. so i just kept my mouth shut, even though i wanted to scream. later i brought it up with my boss. long story short, the atheist has now been fired (in a related note, his wife and kids left him, and he has since become a alcoholic vagrant). but this incident got me thinking... why do atheists hate us so much? iv been attending church all my life, and iv never heard of a Christian pushing their faith on others, or putting down others because of their faith. in my experience, Christians are the most accepting of differences in others. why cant they treat us with the same respect? :help:

Ironically, you have exhibited the exact attitude that turns others away from Christianity. You ranted about how you know no Christians who try to force their faith on people, and then you imply that you had a role in the firing of your atheist colleague because he was critical of your beliefs. You also mentioned how "atheists are all going to hell" as if you have the power to decide that. Then you make things even worse by mentioning the marital status and alcohol addiction of this man in such a way as to convey smug satisfaction of revenge. Maybe your idea of Christians "pushing their faith on others" is Westboro Baptist Church and you do what most others consider "fundie".

[Lisa0315]

Ironically, you have exhibited the exact attitude that turns others away from Christianity. You ranted about how you know no Christians who try to force their faith on people, and then you imply that you had a role in the firing of your atheist colleague because he was critical of your beliefs. You also mentioned how "atheists are all going to hell" as if you have the power to decide that. Then you make things even worse by mentioning the marital status and alcohol addiction of this man in such a way as to convey smug satisfaction of revenge. Maybe your idea of Christians "pushing their faith on others" is Westboro Baptist Church and you do what most others consider "fundie".


Yes, this OP was definitely an irony meter breaker.

Lisa

[DarwinsChainsaw]

Can you show me concrete lab evidence that proves to me atheism? Thank you.
Not lab evidence, but philosophical evidence. The usual concept of God is an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being. How could such a being allow evil to exist?

Its omniscience would alert it to evil
Its omnibenevolence would compell it to remove evil
Its omnipotence would allow it to instantly remove all forms of evil, without side effects of any kind

Thereore, you are left with the choice that God as defined above does not exist, or evil as defined above does not exist. I see overwhelming evidence of evil every day, and never any evidence of God. My choice is made.

[NewGuy101]

Not lab evidence, but philosophical evidence. The usual concept of God is an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being. How could such a being allow evil to exist?

Its omniscience would alert it to evil
Its omnibenevolence would compell it to remove evil
Its omnipotence would allow it to instantly remove all forms of evil, without side effects of any kind

Thereore, you are left with the choice that God as defined above does not exist, or evil as defined above does not exist. I see overwhelming evidence of evil every day, and never any evidence of God. My choice is made.
You seem like a very smart guy but you are using your bad assumptions to make false deductions. Because God is alert to evil, that doesn't imply he would want to REMOVE evil unless he is using it for his own purpose. Secondly even if God did want to remove it, who said that he would want to do it instantly? Why wouldn't he want to gradually use it?

Please define evil as well since that seems to be your basis for this argument. I'm wondering how an agnostic can have a basis for "good" and "evil" without a universal standard.

[DarwinsChainsaw]

The point of an "OOO" God is that He would be omnipotent and hence could do literally ANYTHING, including working in ways far beyond our understanding. He would not need to make sacrifices (eg allowing evil to exist), because His omnipotence would allow him to achieve whatever He wanted instantly. If evil exists, it exists because he wants it to and this rules out omnibenevolence.

By evil in this context, I mean unnecessary suffering inflicted on other humans by other humans.

[Indrid Cold]

The OP hit and ran - well. Good job!!

[NewGuy101]

The point of an "OOO" God is that He would be omnipotent and hence could do literally ANYTHING, including working in ways far beyond our understanding. He would not need to make sacrifices (eg allowing evil to exist), because His omnipotence would allow him to achieve whatever He wanted instantly. If evil exists, it exists because he wants it to and this rules out omnibenevolence. Point being is he isn't making any sacrifices, he is allowing evil do his own will. How does it rule omni benevolence?

By evil in this context, I mean unnecessary suffering inflicted on other humans by other humans.
Again bad assumption. We dont know its unnecessary, all we do know is HE wants it to happen.

[DarwinsChainsaw]

Youre right. I can't prove that evil exists, because I can't prove it as unnecesary. However, I see overwhelmingly more evidence for evil than I do for God and as I said I believe the two are mutually exclusive.

[Criada]

The point of an "OOO" God is that He would be omnipotent and hence could do literally ANYTHING, including working in ways far beyond our understanding. He would not need to make sacrifices (eg allowing evil to exist), because His omnipotence would allow him to achieve whatever He wanted instantly. If evil exists, it exists because he wants it to and this rules out omnibenevolence.

By evil in this context, I mean unnecessary suffering inflicted on other humans by other humans.

Does this not tell you something about your premise?

God is indeed far beyond our understanding. :)

[NewGuy101]

Youre right. I can't prove that evil exists, because I can't prove it as unnecesary. However, I see overwhelmingly more evidence for evil than I do for God and as I said I believe the two are mutually exclusive.
Alright so you agree that evil exists. You agree that there is an exist a standard which all humans must uphold to. Can you agree that the world isn't how it should be? Can you agree that human beings do evil? Can you see that we need a savior? Something that saves us from our evils?

[Hentenza]

Youre right. I can't prove that evil exists, because I can't prove it as unnecesary. However, I see overwhelmingly more evidence for evil than I do for God and as I said I believe the two are mutually exclusive.

You can't have good without evil. Otherwise, how would you know if something is good or evil?

Good and evil are not mutually exclusive but actually compliments of one another.;)

[DarwinsChainsaw]

Alright so you agree that evil exists. You agree that there is an exist a standard which all humans must uphold to. Can you agree that the world isn't how it should be? Can you agree that human beings do evil? Can you see that we need a savior? Something that saves us from our evils?
I agree that evil exists. I dont think morality is completely objective, but there are some actions which IMO are undeniably evil. We maybe could use a savior, but since evil still exists IMO we dont have one.

Crida:

This is why 'the problem of evil' isnt a proof. We cant be certain that evil really exists, but since I see far more evidence of evil than of God, and as far as I can see the two are mutually exlusive, IMO evil exists and God cannot.

Hertenza

I think you can have good without evil, just as you can have light without dark. If there exists even one act which is wholly good then in theory good could exist without evil. Anyway, I dont think evils like terrorism need to exist just to highlight good actions, and if an omnipotent God existed he could create a way of doing this which did not involve suffering.

[Criada]

I agree that evil exists. I dont think morality is completely objective, but there are some actions which IMO are undeniably evil. We maybe could use a savior, but since evil still exists IMO we dont have one.

Crida:

This is why 'the problem of evil' isnt a proof. We cant be certain that evil really exists, but since I see far more evidence of evil than of God, and as far as I can see the two are mutually exlusive, IMO evil exists and God cannot.



And yet you admit that God, should he exist, is "far beyond our understanding"
Why then is the fact that you cannot prove Him evidence of his lack of existence, rather that of our human inability to comprehend the Divine?

[Lisa0315]

I agree that evil exists. I dont think morality is completely objective, but there are some actions which IMO are undeniably evil. We maybe could use a savior, but since evil still exists IMO we dont have one.

Crida:

This is why 'the problem of evil' isnt a proof. We cant be certain that evil really exists, but since I see far more evidence of evil than of God, and as far as I can see the two are mutually exlusive, IMO evil exists and God cannot.

Hertenza

I think you can have good without evil, just as you can have light without dark. If there exists even one act which is wholly good then in theory good could exist without evil. Anyway, I dont think evils like terrorism need to exist just to highlight good actions, and if an omnipotent God existed he could create a way of doing this which did not involve suffering.

The existence of evil does not exclude the fact that a Saviour is available. Let me explain...

God could have ended evil at the cross. When the plan of redemption was complete, victory was accomplished. However, God in HIS MERCY allows evil to continue because when God ends evil, death, and suffering, He will have to judge the world. To right the wrongs, God will judge everyone. God delays His judgment and therefore evil continues so that more may come to Him for salvation before the age of grace ends.

So, the choice is end the world today and there are no more chances for anyone to be reconciled to God. Or allow evil, death, and suffering to continue so that a few more may find redemptin and rconcilliation.

Lisa

[cubanito]

My dear Henteza, I must disagree w you. Good and evil are not compliments of one another. The opposite of Good is nothing, not evil. Evil is a parasite on Good. Evil is adultery, which at it's root is the MIXING of things that ought not be mixed. Evil is the addition, or subtraction (usually both) to Good. Thus the lies of men and devils (which means slanderer) must contain an element of Truth to be effective. A slanderer may fabricate 99% of his accusations, but at the core there will be some kernel of Truth. Sometimes it's 99% Truth and just that 1% omission that earned Lucifer the name slanderer (diabolos, or as in my native toungue, diablo).

We are not Zoroastrians, or Pantheists. We believe in a Transcendent God who is before timespace, and who is Good with no shadow of evil. God is Good, and God's being is not contingent on the existance of evil, as shown by God PRECEEDING the existance of evil. Pure evil can not be, for it would negates itself, it would consume itself, it would destoys itself. Pure evil is nothing.

I could say I got this theology from Augustine, but that would be a lie.

Like most of my theology, it comes from popular culture; in this case the movie "The Never Ending Story." In the original movie, evil was "the nothingness" that came from the INDIFFERENCE of people towards fairy tales and the imagination.

God is Good, God is Love. What is the opposite of Love, even the love we humans so feebly display? Not hate, no my friend, we all know that it is indifference. Even hate, twisted as it may be, has a sick fixation/lust/admiration for the object. Even erotic love, ask the pagan lovers, they know how easily love/hate are often two sides of the same coin. But indifference, oh yes, there's the end of all forms of love, even lust. Even arrogance and selfishness have a kernel of good: self love, which is a commandment. "Love others AS YOU LOVE YOURSELF." It is out of order, as it ought to be the SECOND command, and devoid from it's proper place under the Love of God becomes evil, mixing the Good of Love, with the omission of the primary object of that Love.

God is Good, God is Light. So what is the opposite of light, even in the physical realm, what is the opposite of light? Is it not darkness, and what is darkness but the non-existance, the lack of light?

My dear Henteza, you need to be careful from which movies you get your theology. I am not a Star Wars fan.

JR

[anonymous1515]

The existence of evil does not exclude the fact that a Saviour is available. Let me explain...

God could have ended evil at the cross. When the plan of redemption was complete, victory was accomplished. However, God in HIS MERCY allows evil to continue because when God ends evil, death, and suffering, He will have to judge the world. To right the wrongs, God will judge everyone. God delays His judgment and therefore evil continues so that more may come to Him for salvation before the age of grace ends.

So, the choice is end the world today and there are no more chances for anyone to be reconciled to God. Or allow evil, death, and suffering to continue so that a few more may find redemptin and rconcilliation.

Lisa
But surely today there are far more unbelievers than believers. Also, by your logic God can NEVER end the world, as there are still many more potential believers that have not been born yet or have not yet converted.

[anonymous1515]

i was talking to a co-worker at the office about 3 months ago, and we got to discussing faith. i told him im a Christian, he said he was an atheist. now, normally i would have said something, because as we all know, atheists are all going to hell. but, i like my job, so i kept the truth to my self. he however, didnt have the good grace to do the same. i got an earfull to say the least. so i just kept my mouth shut, even though i wanted to scream. later i brought it up with my boss. long story short, the atheist has now been fired (in a related note, his wife and kids left him, and he has since become a alcoholic vagrant). but this incident got me thinking... why do atheists hate us so much? iv been attending church all my life, and iv never heard of a Christian pushing their faith on others, or putting down others because of their faith. in my experience, Christians are the most accepting of differences in others. why cant they treat us with the same respect? :help:
I'm not sure Christians are the most accepting of others. Some are very accepting, others are not. Also, contrary to your experience, in my experience Christians can be very resistant to change and unaccepting of differences in faith.

However, I do think it is wrong for atheists to hate you for having a religion. My feeling is that the several atheists you have encountered are not representative of the majority of atheists. Similarly, the few very resistant and abrasive Christians I have met are by no means representative of Christianity as a whole.

Unfortunately, the memory of those few individuals tends to color one's memory. My advice is to forget the situation happened. Treat atheists like you would treat anyone else. The one atheist you encountered just happened to be a jerk, and his jerky-ness had nothing to do with his atheism, just like the fact that some Christians are jerks has nothing to do with the fact that they are Christians.

[Hentenza]

My dear Henteza, I must disagree w you. Good and evil are not compliments of one another. The opposite of Good is nothing, not evil. Evil is a parasite on Good. Evil is adultery, which at it's root is the MIXING of things that ought not be mixed. Evil is the addition, or subtraction (usually both) to Good. Thus the lies of men and devils (which means slanderer) must contain an element of Truth to be effective. A slanderer may fabricate 99% of his accusations, but at the core there will be some kernel of Truth. Sometimes it's 99% Truth and just that 1% omission that earned Lucifer the name slanderer (diabolos, or as in my native toungue, diablo).

We are not Zoroastrians, or Pantheists. We believe in a Transcendent God who is before timespace, and who is Good with no shadow of evil. God is Good, and God's being is not contingent on the existance of evil, as shown by God PRECEEDING the existance of evil. Pure evil can not be, for it would negates itself, it would consume itself, it would destoys itself. Pure evil is nothing.

I could say I got this theology from Augustine, but that would be a lie.

Like most of my theology, it comes from popular culture; in this case the movie "The Never Ending Story." In the original movie, evil was "the nothingness" that came from the INDIFFERENCE of people towards fairy tales and the imagination.

God is Good, God is Love. What is the opposite of Love, even the love we humans so feebly display? Not hate, no my friend, we all know that it is indifference. Even hate, twisted as it may be, has a sick fixation/lust/admiration for the object. Even erotic love, ask the pagan lovers, they know how easily love/hate are often two sides of the same coin. But indifference, oh yes, there's the end of all forms of love, even lust. Even arrogance and selfishness have a kernel of good: self love, which is a commandment. "Love others AS YOU LOVE YOURSELF." It is out of order, as it ought to be the SECOND command, and devoid from it's proper place under the Love of God becomes evil, mixing the Good of Love, with the omission of the primary object of that Love.

God is Good, God is Light. So what is the opposite of light, even in the physical realm, what is the opposite of light? Is it not darkness, and what is darkness but the non-existance, the lack of light?

My dear Henteza, you need to be careful from which movies you get your theology. I am not a Star Wars fan.

JR

My friend, you are misunderstanding what I wrote. Evil can never be equal to good since it is written that good will eventually win over evil. Also, God and Satan are not equals. God is all powerful and Satan is not.
The point I am trying to make stems from the old debate "Why did God created evil". Evil has no existence of its own since it is really a lack in a good thing. For example, holes are real but they only exist in something else. We call the absence of dirt a hole but it cannot be separated from the dirt. So when God created, it is true that all that existed was good. One of the good things that God made was creatures who had the freedom to choose good. In order to have a real choice, God had to allow there to be something besides good to choose.
My use of "compliment" does not imply equal. I used it merely as a descriptive term of two things that seem to go together. Another example is the question of cold and heat. Does cold exist? Cold does not exist. Cold is the absence of heat. Similarly, darkness does not exist. Darkness is the absence of light. Similarly, evil is the absence of good, or better, evil is the absence of God.

BTW- I do like the Star War movies.:cool::D

[NewGuy101]

Atheist if they were to be consistent with their system would have to hate whoever is above them in the evolutionary chain. Since most atheist consider religious people inferior and idiots they should have us all castrated. :holy:

[anonymous1515]

Atheist if they were to be consistent with their system would have to hate whoever is above them in the evolutionary chain. Since most atheist consider religious people inferior and idiots they should have us all castrated. :holy:
Hahahaha. Riiiiiiight.:scratch:

[NewGuy101]

Hahahaha. Riiiiiiight.:scratch:
Am I wrong? If so tell me how.

[anonymous1515]

Atheist if they were to be consistent with their system would have to hate whoever is above them in the evolutionary chain. Since most atheist consider religious people inferior and idiots they should have us all castrated. :holy:
Firstly, you apparently do not understand evolution, so I am not going to take time here to explain it to you.

Secondly, atheists do not all share a common set of beliefs. Atheism only implies a lack of faith in a God. It does not mean they are all social Darwinists. Atheists can hold a very diverse set of beliefs and morals.

Your post clearly demonstrates your lack of understanding in both evolution and atheism.

[anonymous1515]

Also, I think it is utterly rude to lump everyone of a certain faith (or lacktherof) into a group and call them inconsistent or stupid. If I have learned one thing on Christianforums, it is that it is impossible to lump all Christians together under one general statement (except for a belief in Christ). The Christians I have encountered on these forums have amazingly diverse beliefs and moral standards. The only thing that unites all of them is a belief in God. Similarly, the only thing that unites all atheists is a lack of faith in God.

Your statement is, in my opinion, offensive...and I'm not even atheist. However, I think that we can chalk it up to a lack of understanding rather than bigotry.

[NewGuy101]

Also, I think it is utterly rude to lump everyone of a certain faith (or lacktherof) into a group and call them inconsistent or stupid. If I have learned one thing on Christianforums, it is that it is impossible to lump all Christians together under one general statement (except for a belief in Christ). The Christians I have encountered on these forums have amazingly diverse beliefs and moral standards. The only thing that unites all of them is a belief in God. Similarly, the only thing that unites all atheists is a lack of faith in God.

Your statement is, in my opinion, offensive...and I'm not even atheist. However, I think that we can chalk it up to a lack of understanding rather than bigotry.
1) I never called anyone stupid, If you think I did show me where.
2) I am showing the logical implications of their worldview. They are inconsitent, I would know being a former atheist.

You haven yet to show me where I am wrong. I am anxiously waiting.

[NewGuy101]

Firstly, you apparently do not understand evolution, so I am not going to take time here to explain it to you.

Secondly, atheists do not all share a common set of beliefs. Atheism only implies a lack of faith in a God. It does not mean they are all social Darwinists. Atheists can hold a very diverse set of beliefs and morals.

Your post clearly demonstrates your lack of understanding in both evolution and atheism.
1) That's the worst excuse that atheists/agnostics use. "You dont get it therefore you are dumb newguy101." I still remember when atheists tried to tell Micheal Behe that he didn't understand evolution ROFL. He has a PhD in Bio..LOL
2) Again, WHERE WOULD THEY GET THEIR ETHICS FROM? They have no source of transcedental ethics.
3)Your posts shows your lack of understanding of worldview analysis.

[cubanito]

Atheist if they were to be consistent with their system would have to hate whoever is above them in the evolutionary chain. Since most atheist consider religious people inferior and idiots they should have us all castrated. :holy:
While not an atheist, I used to be one (though for a short time, mostly I was agnostic).

To be a consistent atheist is very difficult, and few ever are. It would mean the total abandonment of all terms such as "good", "better" and so on. Thus an amoeba is not better or worse than you, neither is a serial child rapist any "better" or "worse" than the most charitable of philantropists. To be truly a consistent atheist means that ultimately we are nothing but active slimeballs, and all moral terms are illusionary.

Thus, intelligence, knowledge, kindness ect are fundamentally no different than idiocy, ignorance and cruelty.

Most atheists will protest the above, especially in public. Yet that is the inevitable conclusion of any philosoph/religion that abandons a Transcendant Absolute. Your Avater of Francis Schaeffer made that crystal clear in his writings.

Interestingly, some of the more frank atheists have written that it is better for atheists if society conducted itself AS IF there were a God. This is not only a philosophycal conclusion, but a historical fact. Pile up all the religious wars and persecutions of all history on one side, and they are much less than the results of one Stalin. Add to that the French Revolution (diff from the American Rev ONLY in that they expunged God along w the monarchy), or the intellectual children of Nietche (Anarchists, Nazis) or Marx and you have a very clear verdict from history: the WORST religion/philosophy of all is atheism, by waaaaay far worse than even the atrocity which is Islam.

Usually these thoughts are kept private by most atheists, because of the negative implications for their own paradigm. But since a lie is no better than the Truth in a paradigm which denies all moral absolutes, it does not matter.

Now, many (most) atheists live VERY inconsistently. Some live to what any human would term a very high moral code. Yet this is as inconsistant as the anti-semitic Christian, and just as common (historically anyway, thank be to God that Christianity having returned to reading the Scriptures, as opposed to following the traditions of men, has mostly realized the inconsistent monstrousity of being an anti-semitic Christian.

and to Henteza, sorry I misunderstood you. We agree.

JR

[anonymous1515]

1) I never called anyone stupid, If you think I did show me where.
2) I am showing the logical implications of their worldview. They are inconsitent, I would know being a former atheist.
You haven yet to show me where I am wrong. I am anxiously waiting.

1) That's the worst excuse that atheists/agnostics use. "You dont get it therefore you are dumb newguy101." I still remember when atheists tried to tell Micheal Behe that he didn't understand evolution ROFL. He has a PhD in Bio..LOL
2) Again, WHERE WOULD THEY GET THEIR ETHICS FROM? They have no source of transcedental ethics.
3)Your posts shows your lack of understanding of worldview analysis.

Excellent! I do love discussions of ethics. Well, first let me start with your response: "That's the worst excuse that atheists/agnostics use. "You dont get it therefore you are dumb newguy101." I still remember when atheists tried to tell Micheal Behe that he didn't understand evolution ROFL. He has a PhD in Bio..LOL."

Regardless of whether Behe understands evolution, you clearly do not. An appeal to authority will not work here. An acceptance of evolutionary theory does not entail one to "hate" those who have a higher social standing than them, just as being an atheist does not demand a belief in social Darwinism, as I've already pointed out.

Ok, now onto your ethical issues. You have repeatedly claimed that atheism, along with every other worldview other than Christianity, has no real merit because it is relativistic. If our morals are not derived from an objective source, they are no good. You've repeated this over and over, and I've heard it from quite a few Christians. It's actually a very common claim from religious folk. "An atheistic world view means that there are no objective morals. Why be good if there are no objective morals?" Well, I find this topic very fascinating. Let's try a few answers out, shall we?

Alright, lets start with your assumptions.
1. God exists
2. God dictates what is good, and what is bad.
3. Doing what God says to do is Good, and not doing what God says is Bad.

This is known as deontological ethics, and involves acting out of a sense of duty. The act of following the "rules" is what makes us good or bad, not the consequences following those rules. In the case of Christianity, we are rewarded by God if we do good things, and punished if we do not. If we break one of God's rules, regardless of the consequences of doing so, we are being immoral. In this case, if no God exists, then I absolutely agree with you - there is absolutely NO reason to be moral. If there is no punishment for doing bad things and no reward for doing good things, then there is absolutely no reason to act unselfishly.

However, is this the only worldview we can adopt? Is the only possible worldview one in which we are rewarded for our good deeds and punished for our bad deeds? Is the only reason we are good people because we feel a sense of duty? Is it because we are afraid of being punished by God if we do bad things? I can only speak for myself, but I would argue no. I will provide one example of an alternative to your claim that objective morals can only be derived from God.

One way that a person can act is based on the Categorical Imperitive, as described by Kant. It states "in whatever you do, act as if your action was a universal law." In other words, what if everyone acted the way you did? Humans are social beings, and for a society to function, people must reciprocate good actions. If everyone stole from one another, society would quickly break down - it doesn't take a God to tell us this. In fact, some would argue it is an evolved response in humans.

In any case, a person can want to be good for reasons other than fear of being punished by God. Whether or not God exists, it is necessary that people reciprocate good actions. Atheists realize that if they do good things for another person, it is more likely that people will do good things for them too. They may act based on the Categorical Imperitive, in which they realize that if everyone acted selfishly society would not function. Altruistic behaviour need not be explained by means of supernatural motivation.

Another way to explain morals without invoking God is through a human sense of empathy. Like I said, humans are social creatures. Most of us (excluding some psychopathic criminals) feel empathetic towards others when they suffer. We see somebody suffering, and we want to help them out. When I help somebody out of a jam, I am not doing it because I am scared that God will punish me if I don't. Rather, I can empathize with the person in need, and I act accordingly. God is not needed to explain those actions.

Furthermore, we do not even need God to invoke a sense of punishment for doing bad deeds. If a person robs another person, they will be less trusted in the future. As such, they will be less likely to be helped out themselves. People who act altruistically are more likely to get help from others in the future, and as such reap benefits from acting morally.

Let me ask you guys this one:

If you did not think that you would be punished by God for sinning, would you steal from and murder other people? This question is not meant to be facetious.

[NewGuy101]

Excellent! I do love discussions of ethics. Well, first let me start with your response: "That's the worst excuse that atheists/agnostics use. "You dont get it therefore you are dumb newguy101." I still remember when atheists tried to tell Micheal Behe that he didn't understand evolution ROFL. He has a PhD in Bio..LOL."

Regardless of whether Behe understands evolution, you clearly do not. An appeal to authority will not work here. An acceptance of evolutionary theory does not entail one to "hate" those who have a higher social standing than them, just as being an atheist does not demand a belief in social Darwinism, as I've already pointed out.


First of all, that wasn't an appeal to authority. You just proved my point, atheists and agnosttics always blame people "no understanding evolution" because we see their inconsistencies in their world view. Evolutionists can preach and teach whatever they want, that doesnt imply that they are being consistant, or that we dont see that they are playing games. Secondly, I never said evolutionist "hate us" or hate "higher class beings" clearly everyone would like to be on top of the latter or would do anything to be on top of the latter. Again if I am wrong show me, insted of saying "you dont understand it because I said so or your resoning is wrong because I said so."


Ok, now onto your ethical issues. You have repeatedly claimed that atheism, along with every other worldview other than Christianity, has no real merit because it is relativistic. If our morals are not derived from an objective source, they are no good. You've repeated this over and over, and I've heard it from quite a few Christians. It's actually a very common claim from religious folk. "An atheistic world view means that there are no objective morals. Why be good if there are no objective morals?" Well, I find this topic very fascinating. Let's try a few answers out, shall we?

Alright, lets start with your assumptions.
1. God exists
2. God dictates what is good, and what is bad.
3. Doing what God says to do is Good, and not doing what God says is Bad.

This is known as deontological ethics, and involves acting out of a sense of duty. The act of following the "rules" is what makes us good or bad, not the consequences following those rules. In the case of Christianity, we are rewarded by God if we do good things, and punished if we do not. If we break one of God's rules, regardless of the consequences of doing so, we are being immoral. In this case, if no God exists, then I absolutely agree with you - there is absolutely NO reason to be moral. If there is no punishment for doing bad things and no reward for doing good things, then there is absolutely no reason to act unselfishly.

However, is this the only worldview we can adopt? Is the only possible worldview one in which we are rewarded for our good deeds and punished for our bad deeds? Is the only reason we are good people because we feel a sense of duty? Is it because we are afraid of being punished by God if we do bad things? I can only speak for myself, but I would argue no. I will provide one example of an alternative to your claim that objective morals can only be derived from God.

One way that a person can act is based on the Categorical Imperitive, as described by Kant. It states "in whatever you do, act as if your action was a universal law." In other words, what if everyone acted the way you did? Humans are social beings, and for a society to function, people must reciprocate good actions. If everyone stole from one another, society would quickly break down - it doesn't take a God to tell us this. In fact, some would argue it is an evolved response in humans.

In any case, a person can want to be good for reasons other than fear of being punished by God. Whether or not God exists, it is necessary that people reciprocate good actions. Atheists realize that if they do good things for another person, it is more likely that people will do good things for them too. They may act based on the Categorical Imperitive, in which they realize that if everyone acted selfishly society would not function. Altruistic behaviour need not be explained by means of supernatural motivation.

Another way to explain morals without invoking God is through a human sense of empathy. Like I said, humans are social creatures. Most of us (excluding some psychopathic criminals) feel empathetic towards others when they suffer. We see somebody suffering, and we want to help them out. When I help somebody out of a jam, I am not doing it because I am scared that God will punish me if I don't. Rather, I can empathize with the person in need, and I act accordingly. God is not needed to explain those actions.

Furthermore, we do not even need God to invoke a sense of punishment for doing bad deeds. If a person robs another person, they will be less trusted in the future. As such, they will be less likely to be helped out themselves. People who act altruistically are more likely to get help from others in the future, and as such reap benefits from acting morally.

Let me ask you guys this one:

If you did not think that you would be punished by God for sinning, would you steal from and murder other people? This question is not meant to be facetious

Funny, you clearly DONT understand the christiant system. Christian is a grace based system insted of a works based system which you are trying to portray. WORKS are byproducts of our regeneration, we aren't rewarded for what we do. Clearly there is atheist or peopel of other religions who are better behaived than christians but that doesn't bring merit in the eyes of God.

Secondly, we don't steal or do other bad things because God made us that way. It isn't because we can get away with it or not. God changes our very nature from a bad sinful one to a good godly one we all deserve Hell whether our works are good or bad.

[anonymous1515]

First of all, that wasn't an appeal to authority. You just proved my point, atheists and agnosttics always blame people "no understanding evolution" because we see their inconsistencies in their world view. Evolutionists can preach and teach whatever they want, that doesnt imply that they are being consistant, or that we dont see that they are playing games. Secondly, I never said evolutionist "hate us" or hate "higher class beings" clearly everyone would like to be on top of the later or would do anything to be on top of the later. Again if I am wrong show me, insted of saying you dont understand it because I said so or your resoning is wrong because I said so.
No, I am not blaming you for saying that an evolutionist worldview is inconsistent. I am saying that you don't understand evolution because you clearly showed you did not. Your claim that atheists who accept evolutionary theory should "hate" those with higher social standing is utterly rediculous, and has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. The onus is on you to show why it has anything to do the theory. Go ahead, I'm waiting.


Funny, you clearly DONT understand the christiant system. Christian is a grace based system insted of a works based system which you are trying to portray. WORKS are byproducts of our regeneration, we aren't rewarded for what we do. Clearly there is atheist or peopel of other religions who are better behaived than christians but that doesn't bring merit in the eyes of God.

Secondly, we don't steal or do other bad things because God made us that way. It isn't because we can get away with it or not. God changes our very nature from a bad sinful one to a good godly one.

That is precisely my point. The only reason you consider things "good" is because God says they are good. Why are some actions good and some actions bad? What makes them good or bad? Why, for example, is having homosexual sex bad? It certainly isn't because of the consequences of having gay sex. It is ONLY because God says it is bad. Christians accept this out of a sense of duty - you claim to base your morals on what God says is good, and what God says is bad.

[NewGuy101]

No, I am not blaming you for saying that an evolutionist worldview is inconsistent. I am saying that you don't understand evolution because you clearly showed you did not. Your claim that atheists who accept evolutionary theory should "hate" those with higher social standing is utterly rediculous, and has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. The onus is on you to show why it has anything to do the theory. Go ahead, I'm waiting.Again you have missed the point my statement. In evolution shouldnt one want to be higher in the later? Wouldnt you do anything to be alpha male? Stop misrepresneting me and actually read what I say. Secondly, all you are saying is my statements are ridiculous but you are not saying WHY. If am wrong and you are right expound instead of being the absolute authority for evolution.




That is precisely my point. The only reason you consider things "good" is because God says they are good. Why are some actions good and some actions bad? What makes them good or bad? Why, for example, is having homosexual sex bad? It certainly isn't because of the consequences of having gay sex. It is ONLY because God says it is bad. Christians accept this out of a sense of duty - you claim to base your morals on what God says is good, and what God says is bad.
Because HE is the designer of the universe. Things are supposed to be how he made them to be? Whats your point? Homosexuals having sex is using a knife for a paint brush, a clear perversion.

[anonymous1515]

Again you have missed the point my statement. In evolution shouldnt one want to be higher in the later? Wouldnt you do anything to be alpha male? Stop misrepresneting me and actually read what I say. Secondly, all you are saying is my statements are ridiculous but you are not saying WHY. If am wrong and you are right expound instead of being the absolute authority for evolution.
Go read about fitness (in the evolutionary context). We do not have to be at the top of the "ladder" to pass on our genes. By having children we do so. As long as our children survive and reproduce, they are fit.
Secondly, our place in the evolutionary "ladder" is determined by our genes and our environment, and there is little we can do to change it. If you have genes that make you infertile, then there is nothing you can do about it (except possible some medical procedures). Do you understand what social Darwinism is, and why it does not have even the slightest thing to do with evolutionary theory? I suggest you read up on both - it's very interesting.


Because HE is the designer of the universe. Things are supposed to be how he made them to be? Whats your point? Homosexuals having sex is using a knife for a paint brush, a clear perversion.

Well, God made homosexuals too, did he not? Is he not all-powerful? He could have changed the universe to make homosexuality disappear, but he didn't. And again, you've proved my point - you are only calling homosexuality immoral because God said it is, completely irrespective of the consequences of the action.

[NewGuy101]

Go read about fitness (in the evolutionary context). We do not have to be at the top of the "ladder" to pass on our genes. By having children we do so. As long as our children survive and reproduce, they are fit. What about disabeled children? Why not just kill them? Or their parents as well? Hitler used evolution as tool for nazism and kill inferior being, in my view this is consistant with a secularistic perspective. If its not? Why not?

Secondly, our place in the evolutionary "ladder" is determined by our genes and our environment, and there is little we can do to change it. If you have genes that make you infertile, then there is nothing you can do about it (except possible some medical procedures). Do you understand what social Darwinism is, and why it does not have even the slightest thing to do with evolutionary theory? I suggest you read up on both - it's very interesting. I understand both, why dont they both go toghether?



Well, God made homosexuals too, did he not? Is he not all-powerful? He could have changed the universe to make homosexuality disappear, but he didn't. And again, you've proved my point - you are only calling homosexuality immoral because God said it is, completely irrespective of the consequences of the action.First of all, God didn't make homosexuals gay. Thats a byproduct of sin. Why doesn't he just wipe them all out? YOU ask him? That's like the problem of evil, he is letting this happen for his own purposes...you trying to tell God what to do? Because a situation isn't to your liking it doesnt mean it presents a problem to our world view.

[anonymous1515]

What about disabeled children? Why not just kill them? Or their parents as well? Hitler used evolution as tool for nazism and kill inferior being, in my view this is consistant with a secularistic perspective. If its not? Why not?

Hahaha. Wow. Just...wow. Why not kill disabled children? Because they're people, maybe? Evolution has nothing to do with ethics, and especially has nothing to do with humans actively trying to affect the lives of other people. Humans feel pain, have emotions, feelings, and plans. They have social networks, and relationships. Murdering people cannot be justified in any way by evolutionary theory. They do not even address the same subject matter. Evolution is a scientific theory, like germ theory or gravity. It describes the way the world is, not the way it ought to be. It does not make normative claims - only descriptive ones.

Yes, Hitler did use a twisted version of evolution to support his agenda. However, he didn't understand it, much like you don't. He wanted to create a super-race by killing millions of Jews, Africans, and homosexuals. However:

1) Evolution is a natural process, guided in large part by natural selection. The selection pressure Hitler imposed was artificial. Germans were no more fit than Jews from an evolutionary perspective.
2) By removing all those people from the gene pool, he was removing a gigantic amount of genetic variation. Evolution 101: for populations to effectively adapt to environmental pressures, you need variation. Not to mention the atrocities he commited, Hitler was doing the human gene pool a huge disservice.
3) When people claim that certain races are "better" than others, it is completely meaningless from an evolutionary position. Your fitness is only relative to your environment. For example, you may be very well suited to one environment, but lousy in another. No single genotype will be more fit than every other genotype in all environments. Hence, it is meaningless to say "my genes are better than yours." Sickle cell anemia is a perfect example of this.
4) Like I've already said, evolution is descriptive, not normative. It does not describe the way the should be: that is the job of sentient beings.


I understand both, why dont they both go toghether?

For the reasons I just described.


First of all, God didn't make homosexuals gay. Thats a byproduct of sin.
Haha, yeah. Right.


Why doesn't he just wipe them all out? YOU ask him?
Next time I bump into God I'll be sure to do that.

That's like the problem of evil, he is letting this happen for his own purposes...you trying to tell God what to do? Because a situation isn't to your liking it doesnt mean it presents a problem to our world view.
A situation not to my liking? The only situation I don't like is self-righteous Christians telling others that they are sinful because of the way they were born. And it does present a problem for your worldview. You keep saying "God is doing it for his purposes. We'll never know why." Do you even see your own hipocrisy? You keep claiming other religions are hugely inconsitent, but when presented with glaring inconsistencies with your view of Christianity, you 'resolve' it by hand-waiving and saying "Oh, it's God's plan. There's no way to know."

Show me any single contradiction in any other faith, and I'll tell you "Oh, it's for God to know and you to find out. It's all part of his plan." And presto: problem solved.

NewGuy, I'm tired of debating with you. You present me with fallacious argument after fallacious argument, and don't even know enough about the subject matter we are debating to string together a coherent argument of your own. Take care, I'm done here.

[NewGuy101]

Hahaha. Wow. Just...wow. Why not kill disabled children? Because they're people, maybe? Logical deduction of a naturalistic world view.

Evolution has nothing to do with ethics, and especially has nothing to do with humans actively trying to affect the lives of other people. Humans feel pain, have emotions, feelings, and plans. They have social networks, and relationships. Murdering people cannot be justified in any way by evolutionary theory. They do not even address the same subject matter. Evolution is a scientific theory, like germ theory or gravity. It describes the way the world is, not the way it ought to be. It does not make normative claims - only descriptive ones.Okay maybe I should be more specific since you are splitting hairs. If we live in a naturalist world view...why do people matter at all? Why does life matter?

Yes, Hitler did use a twisted version of evolution to support his agenda. However, he didn't understand it, much like you don't. He wanted to create a super-race by killing millions of Jews, Africans, and homosexuals. However: Actually no, hes was consistent with naturalistic principles.

1) Evolution is a natural process, guided in large part by natural selection. The selection pressure Hitler imposed was artificial. Germans were no more fit than Jews from an evolutionary perspective. According to whom? So human involvement means that it was unnatural?
2) By removing all those people from the gene pool, he was removing a gigantic amount of genetic variation. Evolution 101: for populations to effectively adapt to environmental pressures, you need variation. Not to mention the atrocities he commited, Hitler was doing the human gene pool a huge disservice. Assuming variation included different races not just a variation of Germans right?
3) When people claim that certain races are "better" than others, it is completely meaningless from an evolutionary position. Your fitness is only relative to your environment. For example, you may be very well suited to one environment, but lousy in another. No single genotype will be more fit than every other genotype in all environments. Hence, it is meaningless to say "my genes are better than yours." Sickle cell anemia is a perfect example of this.Define environment, well continue from there.
4) Like I've already said, evolution is descriptive, not normative. It does not describe the way the should be: that is the job of sentient beings.


For the reasons I just described. Which sentient beings? Or should I ask who as authority to interpret evolution correctly?


Haha, yeah. Right. Again, you are an agnostic. How do you know?


Next time I bump into God I'll be sure to do that. Or satan...have fun.


A situation not to my liking? The only situation I don't like is self-righteous Christians telling others that they are sinful because of the way they were born. Because they are born sinners like everyone else and they should repent. How do you know God made them gay? Where are you getting this from? Because you said so huh?

And it does present a problem for your worldview. You keep saying "God is doing it for his purposes. We'll never know why." Do you even see your own hipocrisy? Not knowing doesn't imply an inconsistency?

You keep claiming other religions are hugely inconsitent, but when presented with glaring inconsistencies with your view of Christianity, you 'resolve' it by hand-waiving and saying "Oh, it's God's plan. There's no way to know."Again, because we don't know does not imply an inconsistency.

Show me any single contradiction in any other faith, and I'll tell you "Oh, it's for God to know and you to find out. It's all part of his plan." And presto: problem solved. Nope, not knowing doesn't mean there is a contradiction. You are forcing your own self defeating beliefs on Christianity.

NewGuy, I'm tired of debating with you. You present me with fallacious argument after fallacious argument, and don't even know enough about the subject matter we are debating to string together a coherent argument of your own. Take care, I'm done here.Bye, I don't need to talk to a self righteous fool. When you are ready to talk like a civil person I will be waiting.

[Caduceus]

Logical deduction of a naturalistic world view.

Okay maybe I should be more specific since you are splitting hairs. If we live in a naturalist world view...why do people matter at all? Why does life matter?

Actually no, hes was consistent with naturalistic principles.

According to whom? So human involvement means that it was unnatural?
Assuming variation included different races not just a variation of Germans right?
Define environment, well continue from there.
Which sentient beings? Or should I ask who as authority to interpret evolution correctly?

Again, you are an agnostic. How do you know?

Or satan...have fun.


Because they are born sinners like everyone else and they should repent. How do you know God made them gay? Where are you getting this from? Because you said so huh?

Not knowing doesn't imply an inconsistency?

Again, because we don't know does not imply an inconsistency.

Nope, not knowing doesn't mean there is a contradiction. You are forcing your own self defeating beliefs on Christianity.
Bye, I don't need to talk to a self righteous fool. When you are ready to talk like a civil person I will be waiting.

New Guy: I think your posts (especially this last one) adequately sum up why a lot of atheists/humanists dislike fundamentalist Xtians. So many of you display such arrogant, patronising, smugness towards those who do not share your beliefs (even other Xtians). Maybe some of you are simply copying your 'celebrities'. For example the petulance of Ted Haggard's temper tantrum against the film crew in Dawkins in The Root of All Evil; or Pat Robertson’s ‘charming’ comments against the residents of Dover Pennsylvania; or the late Jerry Falwell demanding that his ‘people’ should be ‘the most intolerant people in the world’.


Those of us who have read Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale have seen a chilling fictionalised portrayal of a world run by such people.

[threedog]

God created the Good, the Bad, the ugly...He did it all. Let's give God all the credit he deserves until we understand fully what his true intentions are for such a puny confused species.

threedog

[timmeh]

NewGuyy101,
I hope you've taken the time to reread this thread and see the glaring logical errors you are making. I'd hope that you'd take tis one step further and apply this to your religion, but sadly I know this will never happen.

You got completely owned by anonymous1515.

[Jakesmith1995]

Because there are diseases that could be cured by stem cell research but you'd rather people die.

[The Morning Star]

why do atheists hate us so much?:help:

we don't. Seriously, I am not kidding, we don't hate you, we don't even care. live your life your way, there is no need to tell us we are going to hell, and there is no reason for us to tell you your entire life is based on a lie. Not saying it is, just giving both sides. Please don't make sweeping generalizations about a group of people because we don't believe in god.

[jwp]

Athesists hate Christianity because it exposes their error. The consequences of that exposure is that they will continue to live but it won't be in heaven. They pride themselves on a 'superior' knowledge and even call themselves the 'free thinkers'. When in reality they are only fooling themselves. Christianity doesn't start with mental gymnastics, it starts with simple faith. So simple in fact a child can get it. Atheists can't claim the same. Their religion requires a lot of mental gymnastics.

[Caduceus]

Athesists hate Christianity because it exposes their error. The consequences of that exposure is that they will continue to live but it won't be in heaven. They pride themselves on a 'superior' knowledge and even call themselves the 'free thinkers'. When in reality they are only fooling themselves. Christianity doesn't start with mental gymnastics, it starts with simple faith. So simple in fact a child can get it. Atheists can't claim the same. Their religion requires a lot of mental gymnastics.


Atheism is not a religion.

It may come as a surprise to some people that there are plenty of us out there who find it remarkably easy to recognise the marvels of the universe, the complexities of the natural world on this planet, and accept our own demise (after which our constituent molecules will be re-absorbed into the natural cycle to continue that process); without the need for an anthropomorphic deity overseeing everything.

[nzguy]

atheism is not a religion? Don't you put your FAITH in the fact there is no God.. since you don't know this for certain? That makes it a belief... a statement of faith..which applies to the word religion.

Of course, I don't actually call Christianity a religion.. because the word religion is tied up with religious rites and ceremonies and good works.. where Christians who are born again by the Holy Spirit don't have to do any of these things..

it is a relationship with Christ.. not a religion

anyway,

most people in teh world actually believe in a higher power as many have said before.. so atheism is a minority religion, that logically most people don't agree with.

Of course that belief in a higher power does not mean belief in Jesus as God, most people in the world don't really believe Jesus is God. Belief in a higher power can mean all kinds of different beliefs.. Hindus.. Buddhists who believe in the Divine.. Taoism.. Muslims.. Mormons.. Jehovahs witnesses.. Judaism etc..

The distinction between Christianity and these other beliefs, is that thru Christ, sin is payed for, past present and future, thru entrusting Him for salvation. All the other beliefs have good works or changing the state of your mind to gain enlightenment.. or get to paradise.. their is no payment for sin.. no resolution for sin.

A logical faith system which shows God being graceful and truthful, must have an atonement act for our sin, otherwise we are just imperfect beings never able to reach a perfect God.

Anyway.. the point is.. atheism is a minority religion, which logically most people in teh world do not agree with.. and real Christianity is equally small.. which logically is the Way, because it addresses people's imperfect state compared to a perfect God.

:)

[Izdaari]

Before I was a Christian, I was an agnostic. I didn't disbelieve in God, and in fact I was very open to the possibility. But I didn't know, didn't see any way that I could know.

What moved me out of that, toward belief, was reading C.S. Lewis... especially Mere Christianity and Surprised by Joy. He convinced me it was not only possible but perhaps reasonable for an intelligent, educated person with a naturally skeptical turn of mind to believe in God. That didn't get me all the way there of course.

I still needed to be convinced the Christian story was actually true. I investigated the reliability of the gospels, and especially the account of the resurrection. It held up under examination. And then there are the numerous OT prophecies Jesus fulfilled. Those held up too. I was pretty much convinced, though I still had to turn over the pieces of the cosmic jigsaw puzzle in my mind and look at them from various angles before I was ready to make the "leap of faith." (The whole process actually took several years, and I give full credit to God for it. He used my love for science-fiction and fantasy to win me over, though Lewis and Tolkien.)

[Izdaari]

Atheism is not a religion.

It may come as a surprise to some people that there are plenty of us out there who find it remarkably easy to recognise the marvels of the universe, the complexities of the natural world on this planet, and accept our own demise (after which our constituent molecules will be re-absorbed into the natural cycle to continue that process); without the need for an anthropomorphic deity overseeing everything.
I don't find it surprising. I was able to believe that myself, and I still could. But I'm convinced the story of the gospels is true history, that it happened just the way the apostles described, that Jesus did indeed rise from the tomb. That's why I believe, not out of any psychological need or anything. I was perfectly happy being an agnostic, but I got to go with what I believe to be the truth. Anyway, I'm not here to debate it (I don't do debates), just explaining my PoV. :cool:

(Oh, and just to be fair, lest anyone take me for one of the native fundies... I'm not. They're all my adelphoi, and some of them are my friends, but I'm a guest here too. I'm a relatively liberal Pentecostal with strong emergent sympathies, and I actually consider WWMC and Bridge Builders my co-home forums. :cool: )

[DeaconDean]

It has been my experience that there are no such things as "genuine athiests."

God Bless

Till all are one.

[Caduceus]

atheism is not a religion? Don't you put your FAITH in the fact there is no God.. since you don't know this for certain? That makes it a belief... a statement of faith..which applies to the word religion.

No because I have no 'faith' as you term it in the non-existence of a supreme being. Philosophically it is impossible to either disprove or prove the existence of such a concept.

I rest my case on empirical evidence and so far I've seen nothing to persuade me that either this planet or this universe is under the control of any pre-eminent being.


Of course, I don't actually call Christianity a religion.. because the word religion is tied up with religious rites and ceremonies and good works.. where Christians who are born again by the Holy Spirit don't have to do any of these things..


Really? How do you then explain the comments in the Synoptics that are attributed to your eponymous founder?


most people in teh world actually believe in a higher power as many have said before..


So what? Just because people believe in something doesn't make it true. You can't substantiate the existence of a 'higher power' (as you term it) just because 'most people' believe in such a notion.




so atheism is a minority religion, that logically most people don't agree with
.
What has logic to do with the belief in a supreme being? Belief and logic are irreconcilable.


The distinction between Christianity and these other beliefs, is that thru Christ, sin is payed for, past present and future, thru entrusting Him for salvation. All the other beliefs have good works or changing the state of your mind to gain enlightenment.. or get to paradise.. their is no payment for sin.. no resolution for sin.

Mere Pauline theology with no more credence than the beliefs of any other faith-based system.



A logical faith system which shows God being graceful and truthful, must have an atonement act for our sin, otherwise we are just imperfect beings never able to reach a perfect God.


I repeat there is no such thing as a logical faith system. Faith is based on the unknown and unproven. Logic and reason don’t enter into it.

[nzguy]

no have tos in Christianity-

once we have asked Christ in, He comes in to our lives, cleanses all our sin, and indwells us as the Holy Spirit, guaranteeing eternal life.

Eph 2:8 For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God,
Eph 2:9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

(1Pe 3:18) For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

2 Co 5:5 Now He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who also has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.

Ephesians 1:13b-14 in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

(1Pe 1:3) Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
(1Pe 1:4) To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,

that is a little of Peter and Paul's scripture.. from Jesus Himself:

Joh 10:28 And I give to them eternal life, and they shall never ever perish, and not anyone shall pluck them out of My hand.
Joh 10:29 My Father who gave them to me is greater than all, and no one is able to pluck them out of My Father's hand.

(Joh 3:14) And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
(Joh 3:15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
(Joh 3:16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
(Joh 3:17) For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
(Joh 3:18) He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.


Course, if you believe the Jesus Seminar fellas were using sound scholarship.. then most, if not all this scripture means nothing to you. The fact is with the Jesus Seminar fellas is they were not representing sound biblical scholarship, had many previous assumptions before conducting there studies, were a radical fringe group. If you are going to research scripture.. you gotta take the reputable, respected, grounded sources.

Check out the Case for Christ, and the Case for Faith by Lee Strobel. The guys he interviews are the kind that you do want to be getting information on Christianity from.

Anyway, you are posting in a Christian forum website, so I guess you are open to discussion?

[Caduceus]

no have tos in Christianity-

once we have asked Christ in, He comes in to our lives, cleanses all our sin, and indwells us as the Holy Spirit, guaranteeing eternal life.


That's your opinion. As to what are loosely termed religious 'experiences' both neurology and/or psychology can explain such apparent encounters with supernatural entities.

that is a little of Peter and Paul's scripture.. from Jesus Himself:

I would have to disagree. The lines you have quoted are the opinions of one man (Paul) and a pseudonymous writer using the name of Peter. You are confusing the flesh and blood first century Galilean Jew with the later creation of Pauline Christology. Paul never met the flesh and blood Jesus. All his contact was through divine revelation; not unlike the experience Mohammed also claimed to go through. Yet you would presumably, dismiss Mohammed's experiences as false, so why believe Paul's?

After all, hearing voices, seeing apparitions etc are now recognized to form part of various psychiatric disorders and/or psychoses.


Course, if you believe the Jesus Seminar fellas were using sound scholarship.. then most, if not all this scripture means nothing to you. The fact is with the Jesus Seminar fellas is they were not representing sound biblical scholarship, had many previous assumptions before conducting there studies, were a radical fringe group. If you are going to research scripture.. you gotta take the reputable, respected, grounded sources.

I don't appear to share your eagerness to believe everything. I prefer to read the work of accredited scholars and form my own opinion based upon what I consider the most likely outcome. You will find many within academia who disagree with the Jesus Seminar and its conclusions.

Check out the Case for Christ, and the Case for Faith by Lee Strobel. The guys he interviews are the kind that you do want to be getting information on Christianity from.

I have been referred to this person's work before but see no point in reading an apologist for Christianity considering that I don't give credence to any supernatural being regardless of the appellation it is given by those who do believe in it.
Anyway, you are posting in a Christian forum website, so I guess you are open to discussion?

Yes I am. However, I should make it clear that I approach the subject from a strictly historical perspective and not from a theological standpoint.

[nzguy]

Alrighty, historical perspectives?

Well, then you may know of the fact that Paul's writings were written very close to the original events occurances- even teh copies of the originals were written close enough for people to check them out for validity, who were alive when the events happened.

Paul starts his books with a statement of the reliability of what he is writing.. why would he do this? He is inviting people to remember the events he is writing about, and is basically asking them to check it out for themselves in the form of admonishing them, that this is the truthful account of the events.

Rom 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
Rom 1:2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the Holy Scriptures,)
Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
Rom 1:4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
Rom 1:5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name;
Rom 1:6 Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:
Rom 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

This opening, invites people to check out what he has written.. and he writes most of his books with a similar start.

Then you have the famous creed scripture:


(1Co 15:3) For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures;
(1Co 15:4) And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures:
(1Co 15:5) And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
(1Co 15:6) After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
(1Co 15:7) After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
(1Co 15:8) And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

According to the Case for Christ interviewees who were asked about this, who are experts in biblical records and history.. this section of scripture is one of the earliest in the entire New Testament. According to the interviewees, it dates to within 2-20 years after Jesus' life, death and ressurrection!

So you can't call this legendary development, and Paul is claiming that Jesus appeared to him.. which could be checked out by others who were still living when this was written!

Of course it wasn't written in English, but the English translations use Hebrew and Greek manuscripts which are reliable and valid copies of the original writings, given the meticulousness of copyists, closeness of copying to the original events, the fact that the people writing these things could be killed for what they write (you would bend the truth normally, if you knew you would be killed from producing it). Also the testimony of eye-witnesses that were initially despondent after Jesus dieing on the Cross.. then suddenly they are proclaiming He is risen from the dead.. this kind of turn around has to be explained.

Then of course you have Jesus' claims about Himself.. because He did claim to be God, through studying scriptural context and other historical writings about him.

So He was either crazy, lying, or God in human skin.

His non-existence is ruled out because of the depth of historical accounts of Jesus.. He was not crazy, given His consistency of character and ability to reason with anyone, He was not lying, because He would back up everything He said with references and acted on what He said.

You can't call Him a good teacher, because a good teacher doesn't claim to be God. He did not call Himself a prophet.

All you are left with is God in human skin.

The crucifixion of Christ is a verified historical account.. his death on the cross is verified and he could not have survived the Romans method of crucifying Him.. (most people died before they got to the cross, Jesus survived this... but was in a critical condition on the cross, before he was stabbed in the side to make sure he was dead!)

The tomb was empty 3 days later after his burial

There were historical accounts of people seeing Jesus alive appearing to them at this time.

You gotta look at this! Ignoring it is too costly! If Jesus really is God, and is alive now.. then there are some real implications to this! The meaning of life itself!