Even Atheists Think That Atheists Are More Immoral.

[Charles]

I already answered you. After which you pretended "not to get it" which started this line of rhetoric.

what a tool.

I asked more than one question and i honestly did not get it. Have you got anything of substance to say. Don't be dishonest, Sparko.

[Sparko]

I asked more than one question and i honestly did not get it. Have you got anything of substance to say. Don't be dishonest, Sparko.

Nope, nothing of substance for you at this point. Just ad hom. Enjoy.

[Charles]

Nope, nothing of substance for you at this point. Just ad hom. Enjoy.

Ok. Wonder why Christians appreciate such an approach. But I suppose I am a fool for asking.

[Sparko]

Ok. Wonder why Christians appreciate such an approach. But I suppose I am a fool for asking.

I would answer but you wouldn't "get it"

[Charles]

I would answer but you wouldn't "get it"

Ah, the love of the Christians. It is so overwhelming.

[Sparko]

Ah, the love of the Christians. It is so overwhelming.

You're welcome.

[Teallaura]

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

Impartation is very, very, very different from entry. Sin entering the world through the sin of Adam is VERY different from everyone being guilty of that sin.

..., 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.

Sure it is - computers exist only because they were initially conceptualized - a machine capable of doing things only a human mind had ever done before (calculations, to start with). Without the concept there can be no creation. Sin is no different - prior to the Fall, there simply wasn't the inclination.

[Teallaura]

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

Are you arguing that they are morally correct actions? If not, on what basis? If so, then from the naturalist perspective, your argument stands - it just comes out looking really stupid from almost every other perspective.

[Teallaura]

Of course. Absolutely no one here is confused about that.



His argument was assuming the Christian perspective because you sardonically asked about the Christian perspective assuming (for your argument's sake) that Adam and Eve were real. I really don't understand why you guys are making this so much more complicated than it really is. You're acting as though you've never interacted with anyone in this way before. Seeing as I don't think you're an absolute idiot, the only reason I can think of that you're making a fuss over it is that you just enjoy being contrary.

And even if seer wasn't speaking on the Christian perspective because you were hypothetically taking the Christian perspective first, what's wrong with a Christian telling an atheist that it's his responsibility to find Jesus (the cure)? If, using Roy's example, a person told me that it's my responsibility to not get eaten by a giant mutant star-goat, I might not agree with that person, but I would not find it irrelevant to the conversation if I were discussing mutant star-goats to begin with. Obviously that person believes that mutant star-goats can eat people, and he sincerely believes I can be eaten by them, even if I do not accept his belief. Perhaps his warning will get me thinking, and perhaps one day I too will be a believer in the mutant star-goat thanks to his warning.

To be fair, it's one of the rare times I've seen Roy really miss a point that badly. I think it's sometimes hard to concede when the person you look up to is making the mistake.

Jim routinely makes the social construct argument so I doubt he would have missed Seer's point if Roy hadn't.

[Teallaura]

No, I didn't say that it was horrible or unfair, I said that it was a ridiculous notion, which it is. Sin is not a disease okay, it's a not contagious entity. What ever happened to your notion of free will? Stop blaming Adam.

FYI: disease does not necessarily imply contagion. Many contagions are diseases - but most diseases are not contagions.

Adam opened the door - that's what he gets blamed for. Walking through the door - that's on the individual.

[JimL]

Impartation is very, very, very different from entry. Sin entering the world through the sin of Adam is VERY different from everyone being guilty of that sin.

Sin is not a thing in itself Tea, it is not a thing that enters the world. If you believe it is, then please define what sin is in and of itself.

Sure it is - computers exist only because they were initially conceptualized - a machine capable of doing things only a human mind had ever done before (calculations, to start with). Without the concept there can be no creation. Sin is no different - prior to the Fall, there simply wasn't the inclination.

Oh good, then define for me exactly what sin is in and of itself.

[Teallaura]

Sin is not a thing in itself Tea, it is not a thing that enters the world. If you believe it is, then please define what sin is in and of itself.

Oh good, then define for me exactly what sin is in and of itself.

Sin is rebellion against God.

[Tassman]

Ok. Wonder why Christians appreciate such an approach. But I suppose I am a fool for asking.

According to Paul it was all Adam’s fault. And it was up to the new Adam (Jesus) to make amends so he (God the Father) won’t eternally punish us all over the old Adam’s wilful disobedience in the Garden all those years ago. Of course, science tells us that Adam and Eve are fictions, but let’s not quibble.

[Darth Executor]

Of course, science tells us that Adam and Eve are fictions, but let’s not quibble.

No it doesn't.

[Tassman]

No it doesn't.

"Science tells us that Adam and Eve are fictions. That Saint Paul or Uncle Tom Cobley and all thought otherwise is irrelevant. They were wrong."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michae..._b_874982.html