Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:   Honestly, I used to watchyour videos until you posted the one about that guy who claimed to be the amazing, wonderful or Super atheist (don't remember the name he used), that was an insult to to intelligence.

That's just a user name - do you really think that he chose that name because he thinks that he is so "amazing" (the name is "TheAmazingAtheist")? Come on.
 

Iván wrote:   But back to the point:   You say I don't watched your video....True, but I say you didn't read my post, the anwer is there, .   You claim:   Mr ProgFreak wrote: Original sin is related to Adam, and Jesus is related to original sin - his sacrifice is required to atone for the sin of Adam.   I already posted that: There is not a little divergence of opinion among Semitic scholars when they attempt to explain the etymological signification of the Hebrew adam (which in all probability was originally used as a common rather than a proper name), and so far no theory appears to be fully satisfactory. One cause of uncertainty in the matter is the fact that the root adam as signifying "man" or "mankind" is not common to all the Semitic tongues, though of course the name is adopted by them in translations of the Old Testament. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01129a.htm So probably we are not talking about a man., a but about mankind, or early mankind if you want.

Ok, fine. So you're basically saying (or your church is saying, and you endorse it) that the old testament is not to be taken literally in respect to the story of Creation and Adam specifically. I also said that. The problem is that in this case you don't have any original sin anymore. Please explain to me what Jesus died for. And I think I don't have to mention that your church is founded on the idea that there was a literal Adam, and that Jesus died to atone for his eating from the fruit of the tree of knowledge. If you today completely reject all that, I think that I am not out of line when I point out that your religion has been disproven. If back when Christianity got started and it rose to power people had already known that the old testament was just a bunch of legendary tales and stories, and that the world and the human species was not created like it described, Christianity would have remained a fringe cult.

Iván wrote:   Now you say:   Mr ProgFreak wrote: Take away Adam as a real person which existed exactly as the old testament says, and Jesus becomes completely pointless.   Why?   Can't humanity sin or disobey their pact with their God? I believe yes.

How do you know that there was a pact if the old testament is on such shaky grounds? You can "believe" anything you want, but that doesn't mean that there must be any good reason to do so.

Iván wrote:   Already the Catholic Church said and I popsted irt before   When interpreting Scripture and what it is saying to humanity, we believe we must pay careful attention to the genre that is being presented. Some sections of the Bible are historical facts, some are allegories, others are poetic. For instance, the Gospel of Luke describes events from eyewitness accounts and therefore is historical. As for books like Job and Jonah, the Catholic Church says we don't know for sure.   http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/catholic_creationism.htm     So, you insist in literalinterpretation more than us...And the you critoicize it.   Iván

What I'm saying is that some of the core beliefs of Christianity rely on a literal understanding of parts of the Bible which today are indeed seen to be not literally true - such as the story of Creation. In essence, being the enlightened modern human being that you are, you have accepted scientific facts to an extent that you reject the concept of a literal Adam, but for some reason refuse that by doing so you have removed the foundation of your religion. Of course you can go on and invent excuses and convoluted explanations for not letting go of it and not simply conceding that it's all very inconsistent and doesn't really make any sense. Maybe some Christians will even admit that it makes no sense, but they'll continue to believe simply out of faith, and because they "believe in believing" ... they think that even if it may not be true, supporting the religion has a positive effect. Be that as it may, I think that I have conclusively shown that you can't reasonably defend it. If you think you did, please read your arguments and the statements that you posted again and try to put yourself in a neutral position when you're reading them (that of someone who doesn't *want* this to be true).

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: BTW: Just saw the video, and it's full of  literal interpretation and contradictory conclusions.   Why can't humanity had broken the cobvenant with God as a whole?   I don't see why not being Adam an individual man denies the purpose of Christ. Jesus came to save us from he sins of Adam, understood as a man or as humanity.

Understood as a man for about 1800 years or more, and then maybe understood as humanity by an increasing number of people. Please excuse me for saying so, but this seems like a really, really lame excuse to me. Why not admit that the basis for your religion is a fairy tale? It even features a talking snake.

Making up excuses in hindsight is not a valid defense for a position IMO.

Iván wrote: Of course the last  part where the contradictions between creationism and fossil evidence is unnecessary, because the huge majority of Christians don't believe in Creationism.   In other words, more of the same, the video is a criticism to literal interpretation of Genesis that a minority of Christians belief in.   Iván

This minority are actual Christians, while the majority (which you're part of) are people who still call themselves Christians and either willfully ignore or simply don't know that the concepts of their religion are deeply inconsistent both internally and with respect to the scientific facts that they accept to be true.

OK Mike, I'll try to put myself in a *neutral* position.

" put yourself in a neutral position when you're reading them (that of someone who doesn't *want* this to be true). "

Edited by Trademark - August 20 2010 at 11:51

Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ I'm certainly not neutral, that goes without saying. But independently of that, your conclusion is not correct. There's a difference between not wanting something to be true and wanting something not to be true. It's a little bit odd that I should have to point this out to someone whose native language is English. BTW: Typical "Trademark Speak", with the usual condescension and belittlement.

Both appear to be of the "if you're not with me then you're against me" school of logic, whereas the neutral position would be neither for nor against the idea.

^ nah, like the mark of cain, it washes off with soap.

@Dean

Edited by seventhsojourn - August 20 2010 at 13:55

How would you define ''Anti-Theist''?

Mr ProgFreak wrote:   Understood as a man for about 1800 years or more, and then maybe understood as humanity by an increasing number of people. Please excuse me for saying so, but this seems like a really, really lame excuse to me. Why not admit that the basis for your religion is a fairy tale? It even features a talking snake. Making up excuses in hindsight is not a valid defense for a position IMO.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ I've heard two definitions for Anti-Theist: A) Someone who asserts (makes a positive claim) that there are no gods (also called "Strong Atheism") B) Someone who does not only reject Theism, but also thinks that it's undesirable Christopher Hitchens is an example of B), and it was what I was thinking about when I added the remark above. But also A) would apply - people who make the positive claim that no gods exist take upon them the burden of proof, making their position vulnerable and essentially adding a faith element. Above I said that I'm leaning towards Anti-Theism - I would not make the claim that there are no gods (since I simply don't know), but I will argue that Christianity is most likely not true, and even in the (IMO) unlikely case that it was true, I would not like it - independently of whether I would be sent to heaven or hell.

I make the statement that all gods, and therefore all religions, are the invention of man. From an argumentative point of view this is not the same as saying that there are no gods. A Ford Mustang is an invention of man and it exists - if man invents an ephemeral being and worships it then whether it exists or not is not important - to all intents and purposes it exists.