Even Atheists Think That Atheists Are More Immoral.

[JimL]

Um, no. You're mistaking the entry of sin for impartation of sin.

Seems you're making a semantic argument Tea. Whats your point?

(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.

According to the fiction, they had a choice to make Tea, and it was they that made it. And sin is not a thing in itself that can enter the world, or humanity, as if it existed itself apart from them.

[JimL]

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

Well seer, the point is that sin is not a disease in the first place, so we didn't get it, so to speak.

[Roy]

What? Where do you see him suggesting that someone should act according to a religion they don't belong to?

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

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.

The worldview he knows you reject, and therefore do not need to follow the precepts of.

Even if JimL was discussing the Xtian worldview, seer's phrasing was inappropriate to a non-believer.

Alternatively, now that you've also referenced the giant mutant star-god, it's your responsibility to stop your family and friends being eaten by it.

[Roy]

According to the fiction, they had a choice to make Tea, and it was they that made it.

Theism in both senses. Cool.

[JimL]

Theism in both senses. Cool.

[Adrift]

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

"The worldview he knows you reject, and therefore do not need to follow the precepts of.

Even if JimL was discussing the Xtian worldview, seer's phrasing was inappropriate to a non-believer.

Alternatively, now that you've also referenced the giant mutant star-god, it's your responsibility to stop your family and friends being eaten by it.

seer wrote what he did to JimL because JimL was asking questions from the Christian worldview. When JimL wrote, "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, it's all the fault of Adam and Eve"; He wasn't writing that from the naturalist perspective that he holds. From his naturalist perspective Adam and Eve never even existed. He was assuming the Christian perspective for the sake of argument, so seer replied to him in kind. I think everyone got that except you.

Here is how the conversation progressed,

• I replied to a Christian who shared my perspective about sin. I was clearly writing from the Christian perspective.
• JimL replied to me assuming my perspective for the sake of argument. I wasn't confused when JimL, a naturalist who doesn't even believe in Adam and Eve, asked a question about them, because I knew that he was doing that to make a point.
• seer replied to JimL still assuming the Christian perspective. It was totally in line with JimL's initial question to me.
• You came along and started talking about things from your perspective. If anyone was being non sequitur at that point, it was you.
• Picking up where you newly started, seer replied to you from your naturalist perspective.

[Roy]

Here is how the conversation progressed,

• I replied to a Christian who shared my perspective about sin. I was clearly writing from the Christian perspective.
• JimL replied to me assuming my perspective for the sake of argument. I wasn't confused when JimL, a naturalist who doesn't even believe in Adam and Eve, asked a question about them, because I knew that he was doing that to make a point.
• seer replied to JimL still assuming the Christian perspective. It was totally in line with JimL's initial question to me.
• You came along and started talking about things from your perspective.

No, that's where you go wrong. I was using Jim's perspective, not mine, though they mostly coincide.. Nor was Jim necessarily asking questions from the Xtian worldview, since he was rejecting that worldview as being "one of the stupidist thing I've ever heard".

[Adrift]

No, that's where you go wrong. I was using Jim's perspective, not mine, though they mostly coincide.. Nor was Jim necessarily asking questions from the Xtian worldview, since he was rejecting that worldview as being "one of the stupidist thing I've ever heard".

But JimL was using a Christian perspective. He was being snarky of course, and he later in the same post rejected that view, but to make his point he hypothetically assumed Adam and Eve existed to make the point that he made. Again, I don't think anyone else was confused by this but you. Maybe we can create a poll and see what other people think though. I found the conversation perfectly sequitur.

[Zymologist]

I found the conversation perfectly sequitur.

I just watched Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure (which I enjoyed way more than I probably should have), and if you replace the word "perfectly" with the word "most" it sounds like something Bill would say.

"Most sequitur, dudes."

[JimL]

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

Of course they are perfectly natural actions, how else would you describe them, supernatural?

[Boris the Atheist]

THE RIGHT WING
Atheists Are 0.07% of the Federal Prison Population, Threatening Fact for Christian Fundamentalists
It's a big disruption to the Christian right argument that you need a belief in God to live morally.
By Dan Arel / AlterNet March 31, 2014, 12:14 PM GMT
Touche. CHECKMATE

[lilpixieofterror]

THE RIGHT WING
Atheists Are 0.07% of the Federal Prison Population, Threatening Fact for Christian Fundamentalists
It's a big disruption to the Christian right argument that you need a belief in God to live morally.
By Dan Arel / AlterNet March 31, 2014, 12:14 PM GMT
Touche. CHECKMATE

Anyone making such a silly statement should be laughed at because being religious in prison gives you benefits you wouldn't have if you were not. Would you rather sit in your cell or get out for a few extra hours a few times a week?

[Boris the Atheist]

There are other studies with the same results. Typical of a believer you deny facts and believe fantasies. That's you you believers lose every debate with atheists. 2000 years and we remain undefeated.

[EvoUK]

There are other studies with the same results. Typical of a believer you deny facts and believe fantasies. That's you you believers lose every debate with atheists. 2000 years and we remain undefeated.

You're going to be a hoot, aren't you.

[JimL]

seer wrote what he did to JimL because JimL was asking questions from the Christian worldview. When JimL wrote, "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, it's all the fault of Adam and Eve"; He wasn't writing that from the naturalist perspective that he holds. From his naturalist perspective Adam and Eve never even existed. He was assuming the Christian perspective for the sake of argument, so seer replied to him in kind. I think everyone got that except you.

Here is how the conversation progressed,

• I replied to a Christian who shared my perspective about sin. I was clearly writing from the Christian perspective.
• JimL replied to me assuming my perspective for the sake of argument. I wasn't confused when JimL, a naturalist who doesn't even believe in Adam and Eve, asked a question about them, because I knew that he was doing that to make a point.
• seer replied to JimL still assuming the Christian perspective. It was totally in line with JimL's initial question to me.
• You came along and started talking about things from your perspective. If anyone was being non sequitur at that point, it was you.
• Picking up where you newly started, seer replied to you from your naturalist perspective.

seer knew that the christian view was not my view, and that I was merely pointing out the ridiculousness, in my opinion, of the christian view regarding sin. As my reply to seer's point, 'about sin being a disease and Jesus being the cure made clear,' his teaching was pointless to me, a none believer.