Why Jesus, and not say Zarathustra or Hercules and a few tens or hundreds of similar characters sunk into history?
The fact that European civilization is used Jesus, even though he was a preacher in the distant Jewish pastoral tribe, yet does not speak about his uniqueness.
Religion asks questions and doesn't answers on them at all.
For the most part questions are primitive and can captivate a person, who's too lazy to try to understand all by itself and delegates this to Superbeing - who knows all the best.
A science just answers the questions through observation and experiment.
So to say that "science is about the How - religion is about the Why" It is not quite correct, as for me.
The most atheistic book I've ever read is bible by the way.
Please don't try to mix the science with your personal hobby, such as religion - it's have nothing in common
No. History is the reason civilization 'is used Jesus'. The Roman Empire and the Roman Catholic church had a little bit to do with the way history unfolded. Jesus had something important to do with each of those. Care to disagree with that point?
I've flagged your comment for generally antagonistic debate style.
Unless you can give me a good reason for the following sentence, the flag will remain:
History is not a science, because it's just a collection of different opinions that's far away from truth and you can't check it by experiment
This is my opinion on the topic (A scientific basis for Jesus Christ Part II)
it has nothing in common with the science, but you have right to censore my opinion like you want.
How can you say that a book that starts out with the words, "In the beginning, God created..." is atheistic? It ends with John praying to Jesus as his God, "Even so, come..."
The last sentence is understandable. Consider, however, the order that you are able to study in all creation. Does it make sense for this to just "happen" without design? Or was entropy somehow outdone by chance? The very order of creation cries out for an Orderer, if you will, an original Originator.
Rightly understood, science is the study of the Creator. This does not prove that the Bible is the revelation of the Creator. But it would seem that to accept the idea that all this order developed out of disorder and chaos requires far more faith than to accept that there is a Maker to established the order and the laws that maintain it, from its origin and on as it entropies.
This idea is understandably comfotable for human mind - to think that there is some powerful, yet humanoid figure , that takes care of everything, and everything have sense and order.
You still can try find a lot of analogies in a terms of sciense and religion, but it's kinda fictional.
More fictional and less scientific than the idea that everything is just some blind luck that fell into order in total contradiction to entropy? Can you find one shred if science to back up your assertion?
@zaebars - yes that few thousands of years makes all the difference if a certain subset of humanity is the end product desired by that Creator. This is what the Bible reveals and is the type of thing that Science has no way to know.
I didn't talk about luck, you could look at theory of multiverse, for example
Do you realy think that thousands years of humanity existing on surface of this planet make any diference in a universe scale?
It's a fair question, @zaebars. Yes, I do. But that is because it's part of the design of the Creator. Otherwise, no, it wouldn't make any sense at all. If there is no intelligent purpose, then trying to make sense of any of it is, to at least some degree, senseless.
The multiverse is an interesting idea. It's still blind luck though, isn't it? I mean, everything just spontaneously happens?
"Nihilism rejects the distinction between acts that are morally permitted, morally forbidden, and morally required. Nihilism tells us not that we can’t know which moral judgements are right, but that they are all wrong. More exactly, it claims they are all based on false, groundless presuppositions. Nihilism says that the whole idea of “morally permissible” is untenable nonsense. As such, it can hardly be accused of holding that “everything is morally permissible.” That too, is untenable nonsense. Moreover, nihilism denies that there is really any such thing as intrinsic moral value. . . . Nihilism denies that there is anything at all that is good in itself or, for that matter, bad in itself" - Alex Rosenberg (Professor of Philosophy - Duke University)
After reading your paper on the absurdity of life without God, I soon realized that I had to become a nihilist. To act otherwise would inevitably reduce into an inconsistency. Nihilism is the logical conclusion of an atheistic worldview. Yet, nihilism is unlivable. Letter From An Atheist To Dr. William Lane Craig