Original Sin was caused by faith ?
Posted on: April 20, 2007 - 7:58am
Offline
Original Sin was caused by faith ?
According to the 'logic' of Genesis, Adam and Eve's gullibility was responsible for The Fall since they were born innocent, unable to distinguish between the validity of God's instructions and those of God's indirect creation The Devil (in the form of a snake), therefore they just believed whatever they were told and here we are, sinners all.
- Login to post comments
Oops. That would be "agreement".
Don't blame the computer, it is inatimate. It can only be as dumb as the operator.
NO.
The problem, again is this:
1) You dodge each of his arguments
2) You fail back up your own claims.
Stop lying to yourself about this.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
1) Flew's a deist.
2) What matters is not his name, but his argument. And what moved him was a very bad argument.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Not polite. Assertion regarding mindset of other person--subjective opinion presented as matter-of-fact. Perhaps, a better way to state this would have been:
"With regards to these points I cannot understand how you fail to see that you are failing to address the arguments-- or, you merely reassert the same assertions without basis (which is actually redundant, oh well)."
Anycase..
I'm just dropping my opinion and being a pain. Heh... I've been staying out of this whole thread til now. And now.. I will take my leave again. 
Maybe your meds too... ?
Problem?
I agree. And it is apparent that continuing will simply waste both of our time.
In light of how ridiculous you have been acting, you should drop out of your other thread immediately, where you childishly whine about people being mean to you. If you act like this, people will be mean to you, because you make them angry.
I have extended my hand to reasonable debate. You respond by making arguments from emotion and pity, dodging my arguments, and giving condescending nonsense. Your attitude means you are all but compelled to respond. In light of your actions, you have no right to call anyone else angry for being angry at you.
Now, I expect a response to my two posts. This is how argument works. If you cannot argue against me, then you should stop saying things like:
-The Bible offers kernels of truth
-You cannot see spirituality therefore you are incomplete
-Intelligent Design should be taught in schools
-God does so much for you and you slap him in the face
I personally love the last one. Dont you get it? I'm giving you the chance to defend your God. Like Jefferson said, to fix reason to her seat and call her to judge every tribunal.
Well, now I'm putting god on trial, and you are the defendant's lawyer. And if you cannot defend him, then you better stop spouting such condescending sludge
How do you respond? By whining about mistreatment, starting a thread about it, dodging arguments, making appeals to emotion....
Do not resign from an argument, especially if you cannot admit you are wrong. This is the most dishonest, deceitful, childish, arrogant, stupid, close-minded thing a person can do. If you do not want everyone to look down on you even more, then I suggest chin up and defend your belief.
Like I said before, if you can do that, we will respect you.
Sugarfree, you are right, logic is not the only epistemology. However, religion or lack of it is the basis of someone's entire worldview. Therefore it should be rationally coherent. You keep claiming you use logic as well as emotion. But I have seen you use no logic whatsoever.
Like I said, when I look at art or listen to music, I am alogical. But like I also said, there is a difference between alogical and illogical. And your arguments from emotion do not change one cold fact: Any entity or concept which is internally contradictory is nonexistent. To state otherwise would break a fundamental axiom of the very fabric of reality itself. So please, I expect a counter to my arguments.
I already brought up that above paragraph almost verbatim. your response? "Your logic puzzles will not work on me". Do you realize how ridiculous it sounds. The fact that you are so thick you cannot tell the difference between two very different words. I was bringing up a definitional argument to show that your argument about only using arguments was totally incoherent and invalid. You could not respond.
Do you see now why you make my blood pressure rise?
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Before I get too confused with al the threads attached to this, I need some clarificationInitial question. Original Sin was caused by faith?My logic = No, Original sin is based on a story in the Bible. Believing or not in God becomes irrelevant to the answer since, all answers have to be based on the story and not personal belief. If you believe or not story illustrates that sin entered the Garden through the actions of Adam and Eve.Faith can only acknowledge the existence of sin not cause it. I do not see a path of logic that goes anywhere else.
Is this a joke, or do you really criticize everything I say? I'm asking you, respectfully, to lay off, BGH. I've had enough. You have every right to skip over my posts and I hope in the future that you choose to do so.
Do you know me? No, you do not. If you did, you would know, that I simply do not have time to devote to an argument that is going to go nowhere. I have to prioritize my time and this particular argument just doesn't seem like it is going to be worth it in the long run so I am ceasing to engage in it. It is my right to do so.
Do you realize this is your standard answer to any argument you feel you aren't winning? Come on... the people here just want honest debate from you. If someone makes a good point, you need to acknowledge and concede they may have a point, even if you disagree.
it could be the start of something revolutionary; "Theist comes to own decision"....I can see the headlines now...
No Gods, Know Peace.
before I get lost in all the threads attached to this, I need some clarification.
Initial Question - Original sin was caused by faith
My logic= No, Original sinis based on a story in the bible. Believing or not is irrelevant to the answer since all answers have to be based on the story and not beliefs. the story illistrates that sin entered the garden through the actions of Adam and Eve. Faith can only acknowledge the existance of sin, not cause it. I do not see a path of logic that goes anywhere else with rational thought
Sugarfree, please address this.
I think I already addressed it in my post to deluded god. I have nothing to add at this point. I appreciated his comments to me. However, sitting here at the computer and debating takes physical energy. I have decided I have over-committed myself to these threads...mainly over this weekend and I need to cut myself off. This is due to a most recent development in my health, which requires me to be healthy for two.