Can The Atheist Do Good?

[Sparko]

In your world view? never.

In mine, when Adam sinned and became a sinful fallen creature.

[shunyadragon]

But why would humans invent a moral concept that is so clearly foreign to who we actually are? This idea implies a goal, some kind of standard out there, some where. Why do we seem so uneasy with ourselves the way we are? So Doug, do you consider yourself morally perfect?

There is no claim that I know of that humans ever invented a moral concept. Moral and ethical concepts are a part of the nature of being human regardless.

[JimL]

In your world view? never.

In mine, when Adam sinned and became a sinful fallen creature.

And do you also believe that A+E were created as fully adult human beings out of a mud ball and a rib respectively?

[Meh Gerbil]

And do you also believe that A+E were created as fully adult human beings out of a mud ball and a rib respectively?

You've no room to mock anyone on this point as man coming from mud as acted upon by an intelligent agent sounds quite a bit more probable than man arising from mud via a long series of happy accidents.

[Sparko]

And do you also believe that A+E were created as fully adult human beings out of a mud ball and a rib respectively?

[Tassman]

In your world view? never.

In mine, when Adam sinned and became a sinful fallen creature.

The science is against you.

http://www.npr.org/2011/08/09/138957...f-adam-and-eve

[Trout]

Is Tassman citing npr as science?

[Doug Shaver]

But why would humans invent a moral concept that is so clearly foreign to who we actually are?

We have invented countless concepts that are completely inconsistent with anything that actually exists. I see no reason to treat morality as a special case where we could not have done the same thing.

This idea implies a goal, some kind of standard out there, some where.

That's what Aristotle thought. I disagree with Aristotle, and so do lots of other people.

Why do we seem so uneasy with ourselves the way we are?

Because we have enough intelligence to perceive a difference between the way we are and the way we wish we were.

So Doug, do you consider yourself morally perfect?

No, and I don't recall saying anything that could have suggested I do.

[Tassman]

You've no room to mock anyone on this point as man coming from mud as acted upon by an intelligent agent sounds quite a bit more probable than man arising from mud via a long series of happy accidents.

Actually no. This presupposes an intelligent agent for which there's no substantive evidence. Your "happy accidents" are merely the relatively few favourable mutations resulting in incremental changes allowing for a greater chance of survival.

[Tassman]

Is Tassman citing npr as science?

NPR is a reputable news agency but ANY scientific site (other than the Creationist one's in damage control mode) will dismiss the A&E story, that all of humanity has descended from that single pair, as biologically impossible. "Dennis Venema, a biologist at Trinity Western University, says: "That would be against all the genomic evidence that we've assembled over the last 20 years, so not likely at all." And he is a senior fellow at BioLogos Foundation, a Christian group, and presumably not biased against Christianity.

[seer]

Because we have enough intelligence to perceive a difference between the way we are and the way we wish we were.

Why do we wish to be other than we are? Why the cognitive disconnect? I wonder if the ape or dog, if they could communicate to us, would have this same disconnect.

No, and I don't recall saying anything that could have suggested I do.

But why not? Why not just declare yourself morally perfect? That you don't live up to cultural mores, which are relative? That you don't live up to your personal ideal? Why not just change that ideal and claim perfection?

That's what Aristotle thought. I disagree with Aristotle, and so do lots of other people.

I thought that was Plato and his forms, but it has been a while.

[Meh Gerbil]

NPR is a reputable news agency...

Whoops, no reason to read any further.

[Sparko]

Tassman constantly shoots himself in the foot with his defenses of himself. He is like a cartoon villain.

[Adrift]

Whoops, no reason to read any further.

What's goofy is that the NPR article does not at all address anything that Sparko even said. It says absolutely nothing about science being against the claims that "Adam sinned and became a sinful fallen creature." Dennis Venema certainly doesn't say that in the article. The closest the entire article comes to addressing sin at all is when mentioning Dr. Fazale Raza (whose name they misspell as "Fuzale"), an apologist from Reasons to Believe (a website that Tassman rails against in another thread),

Fuzale Rana isn't so sure this is a Galileo moment: That would imply the scientists are correct. But he does believe the stakes are even higher in today's battle over evolution. It is not just about the movement of the earth, but about the nature of God and man, of sin and redemption.

"I think this is going to be a pivotal point in Church history," he says. "Because what rests at the very heart of this debate is whether or not key ideas within Christianity are ultimately true or not."

That's as close to the issue of Adam and sin as the article gets.

But of course, that's just Fazale's opinion on the subject. Plenty of Christians think that one can hold to an allegorical/poetic understanding of Genesis without it impinging on these other key ideas, and have thought this way for decades...centuries even. And of course, as I've previously explained to Tassman, there are even Christians who hold to both a literal view of Genesis who also accept the current scientific explanation of human origins.

[Tassman]

What's goofy is that the NPR article does not at all address anything that Sparko even said. It says absolutely nothing about science being against the claims that "Adam sinned and became a sinful fallen creature." Dennis Venema certainly doesn't say that in the article. The closest the entire article comes to addressing sin at all is when mentioning Dr. Fazale Raza (whose name they misspell as "Fuzale"), an apologist from Reasons to Believe (a website that Tassman rails against in another thread),

What the NPR article does, along with virtually every scientific commentary on the Adam and Eve story, is present the argument that the notion all of humanity being descended from that single pair is biologically impossible.

Fuzale Rana isn't so sure this is a Galileo moment: That would imply the scientists are correct. But he does believe the stakes are even higher in today's battle over evolution. It is not just about the movement of the earth, but about the nature of God and man, of sin and redemption.

"I think this is going to be a pivotal point in Church history," he says. "Because what rests at the very heart of this debate is whether or not key ideas within Christianity are ultimately true or not."

That's as close to the issue of Adam and sin as the article gets.

But of course, that's just Fazale's opinion on the subject. Plenty of Christians think that one can hold to an allegorical/poetic understanding of Genesis without it impinging on these other key ideas, and have thought this way for decades...centuries even.

And of course, as I've previously explained to Tassman, there are even Christians who hold to both a literal view of Genesis who also accept the current scientific explanation of human origins.

Alternative facts you mean?