Wanna become an atheist? Just read the Bible.

[Tassman]

Figures it would be a God of the Gaps explanation.

Actually I think Christianity does very little to offer explanation for natural disasters. I don't think Christians can even come to a conclusion whether or not God actually causes natural disasters or simply permits them to happen. Then even if we can
answer that question the next question to arise is why does God allow or perhaps even cause natural disasters?
And there is much debate about that as well. I don't think Christianity out right attributes those forces to a divine
entity but even if it does it only raises more questions.

I was making the general point in response to your question, that the world religions arose for much the same reason, namely to get and keep the all-powerful god(s) on side.

And secondarily the religions arose to explain in a prescientific era the otherwise inexplicable occurrences of nature - not just natural disasters but eclipses, changes of season, death and etc. In short, it performed the role of a primitive science by explaining how and why the world functioned - except that, unlike science, it did so in terms of the supernatural powers of gods and spirits.

Also I find your summary of Christianity to be rather inadequate especially since you conveniently completely omitted the
entire concept of sin . Also I disagree that it was for the original sin of Adam and Eve but rather for the sin
of everyone who ever lived and ever will live. Jesus died on the cross for everyone.

I was not attempting to summarize Christianity - merely noting that it, along with most other religions, attempted to appease god’s wrath by prayers, offerings and sacrifices – the Christian example being the bloody sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.

[bertatberts]

Also I disagree that it was for the original sin of Adam and Eve but rather for the sin
of everyone who ever lived and ever will live. Jesus died on the cross for everyone.

If everyone who ever lived and ever will live are born sinners, then from whence came the sin.

[The Polimist]

At what point does one conclude that there is 100% certainty of no possible natural explanation?

Which begs the question "At what point does one conclude that there is 100% certainty of no possible supernatural explanation?"
Further, it is logically, rationally and scientifically inane to postulate that something can come from nothing, or life coming from non-life (etc...).

No, at this point the naturalist “is living” with an as yet unknown explanation. The alternative is a god-of-the-gaps argument, which has never been a satisfactory explanation - especially for theists.

No, at this point the naturalist “is living” BY FAITH in their premise (materialistic world view), and the "as yet unknown explanation" is nothing more than the illogical "Argumentum ad Futuris" fallacy. Also you non-sequitur "god-of-the-gaps argument" is an argument against macroevolution, not origins (and used for effect here and nothing more). Therefore it not only fails logically, but by definition as well.

[The Polimist]

If everyone who ever lived and ever will live are born sinners, then from whence came the sin.

You are misrepresenting what mrsticky005 said. He didn't say "everyone who ever lived and ever will live are born sinners". Adam and Eve wern't "Born Sinners", but everyone afterward were. And to answer your quesiton "from whence came the sin", simply read Genesis Chaper Three...

[bertatberts]

You are misrepresenting what mrsticky005 said. He didn't say "everyone who ever lived and ever will live are born sinners".

But he intimated it here "but rather for the sin of everyone who ever lived and ever will live."

Adam and Eve wern't "Born Sinners", but everyone afterward were.

Exactly. Hence my post #197

And to answer your quesiton "from whence came the sin", simply read Genesis Chaper Three...

Exactly the point, Mrsticky005 claimed "Also I disagree that it was for the original sin of Adam and Eve but rather for the sin of everyone who ever lived and ever will live. Jesus died on the cross for everyone." Hence my post #197.
Perhaps it might be prudent to read Mrsticky005 post and my reply again.

So I repeat to MrSticky005 "If everyone who ever lived and ever will live are born sinners, then from whence came the sin."

[The Polimist]

But he intimated it here "but rather for the sin of everyone who ever lived and ever will live." Exactly. Hence my post #197Exactly the point, Mrsticky005 claimed "Also I disagree that it was for the original sin of Adam and Eve but rather for the sin of everyone who ever lived and ever will live. Jesus died on the cross for everyone." Hence my post #197.
Perhaps it might be prudent to read Mrsticky005 post and my reply again.

So I repeat to MrSticky005 "If everyone who ever lived and ever will live are born sinners, then from whence came the sin."

And hence, your post #197 is incorrect BECAUSE Adam and Eve were NOT BORN SINNERS, therefore "NOT EVERYONE" who ever lived and ever will live are born sinners... And regardless of what you believe, Jesus did die for everyone, BUT it was BECAUSE of the ORIGONAL SIN of Adam and EVE. So, you got it partically correct, but you have glaring errors in your statement. HENCE my post #199. Which is BIBLICALLY correct (again, regardles of what you believe).

[showmeproof]

And hence, your post #197 is incorrect BECAUSE Adam and Eve were NOT BORN SINNERS, therefore "NOT EVERYONE" who ever lived and ever will live are born sinners... And regardless of what you believe, Jesus did die for everyone, BUT it was BECAUSE of the ORIGONAL SIN of Adam and EVE. So, you got it partically correct, but you have glaring errors in your statement. HENCE my post #199. Which is BIBLICALLY correct (again, regardles of what you believe).

I understand that this is the theological position, but it is just nonsense. We've been around for a minimum of 200,000 years and before that we diverged from another species of hominid. At what point do you posit an 'Adam' and an 'Eve'? We have evidence of tool production and use by other hominids and possible religious rites regarding their dead. When did 'sin' enter? We are every bit a hominid-primate-mammal-amniote-vertebrate-bilateral animal as every other hominid that has walked the earth.

From whence came the sin if we not only originate from, but still are animals.

[The Polimist]

I understand that this is the theological position, but it is just nonsense. We've been around for a minimum of 200,000 years and before that we diverged from another species of hominid. At what point do you posit an 'Adam' and an 'Eve'? We have evidence of tool production and use by other hominids and possible religious rites regarding their dead. When did 'sin' enter? We are every bit a hominid-primate-mammal-amniote-vertebrate-bilateral animal as every other hominid that has walked the earth.

You are missing the point... Burt was asking a Biblical question, and he was incorrect in his intrepretation of what it said.
Now, as far as your information; you have absolutly NO evidence of how long we've been here. Nor are you carring any evidence of any divergence of other "species of hominid". Other than oyur faith statements that is.

From whence came the sin if we not only originate from, but still are animals.

Now, since you are wont to "have proof" (i.e. "showmeproof), I'll ask you these questions:
Can you show me proof (materialistic empirical scientific factual evidence) for where exactly the universe came from, life came from, intellegence came from?
Or are you simply proceeding on your faith statements thus far?

Please... SHOWMEPROOF...

[The Polimist]

There's just something about the religiosity of the atheist that is so refreshing...

[Tassman]

Which begs the question "At what point does one conclude that there is 100% certainty of no possible supernatural explanation?"

You tell me; its’ your argument. Unlike you, I don't assume the existence of supernaturalism.

You are the one claiming that a supernatural explanation is “when there is absolutley NO "factual" logical, rational and scientific so-called "Natrualistic" and/or "materialistic" explanation”. So support your assertion. Why would one assume the existence of supernaturalism when there is no creditable evidence for its existence?

Further, it is logically, rationally and scientifically inane to postulate that something can come from nothing, or life coming from non-life (etc...)

Support your bald assertion that “it is logically, rationally and scientifically inane to postulate that something can come from nothing, or life coming from non-life (etc)". It seems you are relying on the intuitiveness of the macro universe while ignoring the counter-intuitiveness of quantum theory whereby the classical ideal of causality is no longer relevant.

No, at this point the naturalist “is living” BY FAITH in their premise (materialistic world view), and the "as yet unknown explanation" is nothing more than the illogical "Argumentum ad Futuris" fallacy. Also you non-sequitur "god-of-the-gaps argument" is an argument against macroevolution, not origins (and used for effect here and nothing more). Therefore it not only fails logically, but by definition as well.

There is considerable verified evidence of the natural world and no verified evidence of a supernatural world. It is therefore logical to seek solutions in a proven area of productive methodology i.e. ‘naturalism’; not in ‘supernaturalism’ which has produced nothing and for which there is no epistemology for knowing whether it even exists.

[mrsticky005]

If everyone who ever lived and ever will live are born sinners, then from whence came the sin.

I don't think people are born sinners. I don't subscribe to the alleged doctrine of original sin.
I think it is theoretically possible to live a life completely void of sin. The problem is...we don't.

I said Jesus died for everyone past, present and future and I stand by this.

But I don't think it is determined that everyone will sin.
Actually I think babies who died early died sinless.
So then do these sinless babies not need Jesus?
I wouldn't be so quick to think that. Sin seems to be
a generational problem aside from just an individual problem.
I think it is possible for a sinless person to be affected by
the sins of there forefathers and thus need Jesus.
However I don't believe that we sin BECAUSE of our forefathers.

Also if you think to yourself "well I never sin so I don't need Jesus" then you have already sinned.

The reason why babies can die sinless is because they are incapable of such complex thought.

[Tassman]

You are missing the point... Burt was asking a Biblical question, and he was incorrect in his intrepretation of what it said.
Now, as far as your information; you have absolutly NO evidence of how long we've been here. Nor are you carring any evidence of any divergence of other "species of hominid". Other than oyur faith statements that is.

Now, since you are wont to "have proof" (i.e. "showmeproof), I'll ask you these questions:
Can you show me proof (materialistic empirical scientific factual evidence) for where exactly the universe came from, life came from, intellegence came from?
Or are you simply proceeding on your faith statements thus far?

Please... SHOWMEPROOF...

You are parading your ignorance.

There is considerable evidence and apart from minor quibbles it is accepted as beyond dispute by the vast majority of scientists and by ALL related scientific disciplines worldwide. The comparatively minute body of scientists who dispute it seem to do so solely on religious grounds, not evidence-based grounds.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comd...on1.html#pred4

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

Where is your evidence that god-did-it or are you simply proceeding on your faith statements?

[bertatberts]

I don't think people are born sinners. I don't subscribe to the alleged doctrine of original sin.
I think it is theoretically possible to live a life completely void of sin. The problem is...we don't.

I said Jesus died for everyone past, present and future and I stand by this.

But I don't think it is determined that everyone will sin.
Actually I think babies who died early died sinless.
So then do these sinless babies not need Jesus?
I wouldn't be so quick to think that. Sin seems to be
a generational problem aside from just an individual problem.
I think it is possible for a sinless person to be affected by
the sins of there forefathers and thus need Jesus.
However I don't believe that we sin BECAUSE of our forefathers.

The above highlighted points contradict each other.

And without original sin, the whole of Christianity, and Judaism for that matter falls to pieces.

[mrsticky005]

The above highlighted points contradict each other.

And without original sin, the whole of Christianity, and Judaism for that matter falls to pieces.

No they don't.

And no it doesn't.

If a father is convicted of murder of his wife does it not have an effect on his children who are innocent?

Original sin is hardly necessary for Christianity or Judaism because sin would still exist.
We're not sinners because Adam and Eve screwed up. We're sinners because WE screwed up.
As long as sin still exists and man still sins then man still needs a savior. Heck even sinless
people still need God to STAY sinless. So no, Chistianity and Judasim do NOT fall to pieces.

[bertatberts]

No they don't.

And no it doesn't.

If a father is convicted of murder of his wife does it not have an effect on his children who are innocent?

Yes, however you said forefathers which implies family members long dead.

Original sin is hardly necessary for Christianity or Judaism because sin would still exist.

Ah but it is, If A&E never ate of the tree then there would never have been any sin at all.

We're not sinners because Adam and Eve screwed up. We're sinners because WE screwed up.

And how did we do that?

As long as sin still exists and man still sins then man still needs a savior.

From whence came the sin?
Also Judaism hasn't received it saviour yet.

Heck even sinless people still need God to STAY sinless.

How so?