Even Atheists Think That Atheists Are More Immoral.

[Adrift]

and all that suffering and pain is our fault. The Human race. for rebelling against God. Sin. Charles asked "why is someone punished infinitely for a finite sin?" -- because that "finite" sin is the cause of all the misery in the universe.

Of course under your world view you still have the same suffering and misery, and there is no cause or end to it. good luck with that.

I think another point that could be added to this is that thinking of sin as "sometimes doing bad things within one's short lifetime" is wrongheaded. Yes stealing that pack of gum when you were five was bad, but that's not a complete understanding of what sin is. Sin is a spiritual condition of disobedience and rebellion against God, our creator. Sometimes this exhibits itself in doing obvious visible wrongs like stealing, killing, and raping, but it also exhibits itself in our general mindset and attitude towards God, ourselves, and our fellow sinners who were likewise created in God's image. For those who reject Jesus, that spiritual condition hasn't been altered. Those who find themselves in hell don't stop sinning. So it isn't a case of infinite punishment for finite sin, it's a case of infinite punishment for infinite sin. As C.S. Lewis popularly put it,

"I willingly believe that the damned are, in one sense, successful, rebels to the end; that the doors of hell are locked on the inside. I do not mean that the ghosts may not wish to come out of hell, in the vague fashion wherein an envious man 'wishes' to be happy: but they certainly do not will even the first preliminary stages of that self-abandonment through which alone the soul can reach any good. They enjoy forever the horrible freedom they have demanded, and are therefore self-enslaved: just as the blessed, forever submitting to obedience, become through all eternity more and more free."

[JimL]

I think another point that could be added to this is that thinking of sin as "sometimes doing bad things within one's short lifetime" is wrongheaded. Yes stealing that pack of gum when you were five was bad, but that's not a complete understanding of what sin is. Sin is a spiritual condition of disobedience and rebellion against God, our creator. Sometimes this exhibits itself in doing obvious visible wrongs like stealing, killing, and raping, but it also exhibits itself in our general mindset and attitude towards God, ourselves, and our fellow sinners who were likewise created in God's image. For those who reject Jesus, that spiritual condition hasn't been altered. Those who find themselves in hell don't stop sinning. So it isn't a case of infinite punishment for finite sin, it's a case of infinite punishment for infinite sin. As C.S. Lewis popularly put it,

"I willingly believe that the damned are, in one sense, successful, rebels to the end; that the doors of hell are locked on the inside. I do not mean that the ghosts may not wish to come out of hell, in the vague fashion wherein an envious man 'wishes' to be happy: but they certainly do not will even the first preliminary stages of that self-abandonment through which alone the soul can reach any good. They enjoy forever the horrible freedom they have demanded, and are therefore self-enslaved: just as the blessed, forever submitting to obedience, become through all eternity more and more free."

So, because Adam and Eve freely chose to rebel and to disobey their god, the whole of the human race was, due to that choice, doomed to inherit the effect of their choice? In other words, it is not our fault that we are natural born sinners, its all the fault of Adam and Eve. The buck stops with them. Right? That is one of the stupidist thing I've ever heard. And btw, the so called spiritual condition isn't altered because of a belief in Jesus, or are you suggesting that you no longer commit what you would call sins? If so, I believe that you're bible disagrees with you.

[Teallaura]

So, because Adam and Eve freely chose to rebel and to disobey their god, the whole of the human race was, due to that choice, doomed to inherit the effect of their choice? In other words, it is not our fault that we are natural born sinners, its all the fault of Adam and Eve. The buck stops with them. Right? That is one of the stupidist thing I've ever heard. And btw, the so called spiritual condition isn't altered because of a belief in Jesus, or are you suggesting that you no longer commit what you would call sins? If so, I believe that you're bible disagrees with you.

Um, no. You're mistaking the entry of sin for impartation of sin. (Also, being deceived isn't the same thing as a choice to rebel). Sin entered the world because of what Adam and Eve did - that let the dog in. Choosing to pet it - that's our own choice.

[Adrift]

And btw, the so called spiritual condition isn't altered because of a belief in Jesus, or are you suggesting that you no longer commit what you would call sins? If so, I believe that you're bible disagrees with you.

Teal's answer to the previous part of your question is pretty good, so I won't add anything there. But no, if you've read the Bible you would know that it doesn't disagree with me. See 2 Corinthians 5 which tells the reader that anyone who is in Christ is a new creation and the old has passed away. See Romans 6 that tells the reader that those who have been baptized into Christ have been baptized into his death, and that "just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life." See Ephesians 4 and Colossians 3 that tells the one who has made Christ Lord to put away the old man who is corrupted by its deceitful desires, to renew the spirits of our mind, and to put on the new man, created in God's image of righteousness and holiness.

You'll notice in the post you replied to that nowhere did I suggest that Christians no longer sin. What I was suggesting was that through Christ we are no longer slaves to sin. That new spiritual condition doesn't make us non-sinners, we still retain the learned habits of that old man nature, but it does open our eyes to our sin, puts into our heart a desire to sin less, and to strive for God's holiness. We will fail, but the mature Christian learns by that failure. We will not be perfect within this natural flesh, but we are being perfected day by day. We are in a process of sanctification that will be completed when we are clothed in glory at Christ's return.

Now, by the tone of your post, and from years of reading you, I realize that you didn't ask these questions expecting answers. You obviously have it all figured out. So, no doubt you'll just dismiss the above and find some other line of argument to grouch about. But, I honestly don't think anyone here is all that impressed by what you find the "stupidist [sic] thing" you've ever heard.

[Tassman]

I notice you don't get a lot of points. and it's on purpose.

humans sinning caused the entire creation to fall according to the bible.

Typically vague and evasive.

[seer]

So, because Adam and Eve freely chose to rebel and to disobey their god, the whole of the human race was, due to that choice, doomed to inherit the effect of their choice? In other words, it is not our fault that we are natural born sinners, its all the fault of Adam and Eve.

Jim, it almost really doesn't matter how you got the disease, it is still your responsibility to take the cure.

[Roy]

Jim, it almost really doesn't matter how you got the disease, it is still your responsibility to take the cure.

Stupid Xtian doesn't understand that there is no 'cure' required if the 'disease' does not exist.

[seer]

Stupid Xtian doesn't understand that there is no 'cure' required if the 'disease' does not exist.

You are right, rape, murder, greed, selfishness, etc, etc... Are perfectly natural, how the laws of nature created us.

[Roy]

Jim, it almost really doesn't matter how you got the disease, it is still your responsibility to take the cure.

Stupid Xtian doesn't understand that there is no 'cure' required if the 'disease' does not exist.

You are right, rape, murder, greed, selfishness, etc, etc... Are perfectly natural, how the laws of nature created us.

Stupid Xtian doesn't think anyone will notice his ego-soothing non sequitur.

[Adrift]

Stupid Xtian doesn't think anyone will notice his ego-soothing non sequitur.

It's not a non-sequitur. He's saying that you're right. By the naturalist worldview there can be no "disease" because good and evil are nothing more than social constructs.

[seer]

It's not a non-sequitur. He's saying that you're right. By the naturalist worldview there can be no "disease" because good and evil are nothing more than social constructs.

To quote one of their gods, Dawkins:

"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”

[Roy]

It's not a non-sequitur.

It's a non sequitur because it has nothing whatsoever to do with being 'cured' of the 'disease' of sin.

He's saying that you're right.

You think so? You really think seer believes what he wrote, that man is a creation of the laws of nature, and not of a god?

[Adrift]

It's a non sequitur because it has nothing whatsoever to do with being 'cured' of the 'disease' of sin.

Yes it does. He's saying that "of course, you, as a naturalist would see it this way, and here's the reason why".

You think so? You really think seer believes what he wrote, that man is a creation of the laws of nature, and not of a god?

From the naturalist perspective, yes. seer, of course, is not a naturalist, he's a theist, but he's assuming the naturalist perspective because you're taking the naturalist perspective. I honestly don't get why you're having a hard time with this.

[Roy]

Yes it does. He's saying that "of course, you, as a naturalist would see it this way, and here's the reason why".

Which is tangential to seer's idiocy in suggesting that some-one should act according to a religion they don't belong to.

From the naturalist perspective, yes. seer, of course, is not a naturalist, he's a theist, but he's assuming the naturalist perspective because you're taking the naturalist perspective. I honestly don't get why you're having a hard time with this.

I'm not having a hard time. I'm just noting that my naturalist perspective isn't relevant to seer's stupidity in saying JimL is responsible for mitigating something JimL thinks is completely fictional.

Do you think it is responsibility to stop your family and friends being eaten by a giant mutant star-goat?
Is it your responsibility to keep yourself safe from the disguised lizard-people who have taken over Amtrak?
Are you responsible for mixing and drinking the magic lemonade that will make you invulnerable when the world's banana crop goes nuclear?

No. You aren't. You don't have to mix magic lemons to protect you from nuclear bananas. You don't believe in them. It is pointless to criticise you for not mixing magic lemonade. Just like JimL doesn't have to accept Jesus to protect him from sin, and it is pointless to insist that he does.

The above is independent of whether I am an atheist, a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a vestal virgin or a bananafissionist, and also independent of which of those positions matches reality. seer's response may have some relevance to naturalism, but it has no relevance whatsoever to my criticism of his remark. That is why it was a non sequitur.

[Adrift]

Which is tangential to seer's idiocy in suggesting that some-one should act according to a religion they don't belong to.

What? Where do you see him suggesting that someone should act according to a religion they don't belong to? He was directly replying to you when you wrote, "Stupid Xtian doesn't understand that there is no 'cure' required if the 'disease' does not exist." He replied, "You are right, rape, murder, greed, selfishness, etc, etc... Are perfectly natural, how the laws of nature created us." That's not tangential, that's a direct, and totally relevant reply to your post.

I'm not having a hard time. I'm just noting that my naturalist perspective isn't relevant to seer's stupidity in saying JimL is responsible for mitigating something JimL thinks is completely fictional.

Of course it's relevant. You made it relevant when you stated "Stupid Xtian doesn't understand that there is no 'cure' required if the 'disease' does not exist." That's certainly not something a Christian would say, that's something that you (or JimL), a person who holds a naturalist worldview, would say.

Do you think it is responsibility to stop your family and friends being eaten by a giant mutant star-goat?
Is it your responsibility to keep yourself safe from the disguised lizard-people who have taken over Amtrak?
Are you responsible for mixing and drinking the magic lemonade that will make you invulnerable when the world's banana crop goes nuclear?

No. You aren't. You don't have to mix magic lemons to protect you from nuclear bananas. You don't believe in them. It is pointless to criticise you for not mixing magic lemonade. Just like JimL doesn't have to accept Jesus to protect him from sin, and it is pointless to insist that he does.

The above is independent of whether I am an atheist, a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a vestal virgin or a bananafissionist, and also independent of which of those positions matches reality. seer's response may have some relevance to naturalism, but it has no relevance whatsoever to my criticism of his remark. That is why it was a non sequitur.

You're not making any sense Roy. In the instance that seer wrote, "Jim, it almost really doesn't matter how you got the disease, it is still your responsibility to take the cure" He was clearly writing from the Christian perspective. The reason he was doing that was because JimL was commenting on Christian belief. How do you not see the relevance there? If I were discussing the beliefs of someone who believed in a "giant mutant star-goat", and they then replied to me that it was my responsibility not to be eaten by him, I would find that perfectly relevant to the discussion. He's obviously basing that opinion from his worldview, the worldview I'm discussing with him. seer changed directions only when you added your two sense, because you were no longer discussing the beliefs of a Christian, you were discussing your own beliefs.

The conversation makes perfect sense if you're following along with it. seer said nothing that was non-sequitur.