Every argument ever between Christians and atheists

[Darth Braun]

braun,
do you honestly think the earth was created exactly as you stated in 6 days and in that proper order? I'm not certain on this but doesn't the bible state that the earth is only around 6,000 years old? Do you believe that as well?

yes i do.

So all death is sin? What about death by natural causes (who would be the sinner in that cause) or one animal killing another animal to feed itself?

i never said death was sin. it's not one's fault he has cancer and dies. because Adam and Eve sinned, death came into the world. nothing died before they sinned.

[Darth Braun]

Uh-huh, well, most of those things pre-dated the Old Testament. Look up the Code of Hammurabi if you don't believe me. So those are not explicitly Christian values. You seem to think it was Christianity that invented the very idea that murder and theft are bad. This is not so. Christianity merely agreed with what cilivized societies were already doing. As for money being the root of all evil, that's a subjective judgment.

maybe you didn't read the verse. the LOVE of money. not money. the LOVE of money can drive people to sin

First of all, Adam and Eve are mythical. Second, if something cannot die then it's not alive in the first place. Third, I seem to recall that before they were supposedly expelled from paradise, Adam and Eve ate fruits and vegetables from the garden. Guess what, that's plant matter dying right there.

Adam and Eve mythical? I don't think so, but that's your opinion. The death referred to in the passage was both physical and spiritual. Because they sinned, they were eternally separated from God. That's the spiritual death. The physical death in the passage was referring to Adam, Eve, and their descendants. All they had to eat, and were commanded to eat by the way, were the plants.

Sure, but I can only give you my personal, subjective definition. I define it as indifference, willingness or eagerness to cause other living things unnecessary harm or loss for its own sake or in the pursuit of one's own ends. I know what you're going to say it is: not doing what Jebus wants. I reject that definition.

Nice definition. I have heard it defined as departing from a standard of good. And again, wrong on what I was going to say. Departing from a standard of good...C.S. Lewis put it best "I wouldn't have known what crooked was unless I knew what straight was." Has to be some standard of good when there is evil, correct?

[gatorboymike]

Adam and Eve mythical? I don't think so, but that's your opinion. The death referred to in the passage was both physical and spiritual. Because they sinned, they were eternally separated from God. That's the spiritual death. The physical death in the passage was referring to Adam, Eve, and their descendants. All they had to eat, and were commanded to eat by the way, were the plants.

Well there's certainly no scientific evidence that those people ever existed and there is quite a bit indicating that they didn't. Also, that passage doesn't seem to be indicating that it's talking about any kind of death other than physical death, which of course is profoundly unscientific. "No death" read in literal terms means that absolutely nothing physically dies. If Adam and Eve were eating plants, the plants died. Since you're a YEC, I assume you believe in a literalist interpretation of the Bible, but that's not what you did right there. The very instant you say that when the Bible says X, it means something other than exactly X and only X, you're putting your own spin on it. And in that case, I'm forced to remind you of Deuteronomy 4:2: "Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you."

Nice definition. I have heard it defined as departing from a standard of good. And again, wrong on what I was going to say. Departing from a standard of good...C.S. Lewis put it best "I wouldn't have known what crooked was unless I knew what straight was." Has to be some standard of good when there is evil, correct?

Well I'd say that's not a sufficient definition because it's in negative terms. That is, it doesn't tell you what evil is but only what it is not. And it's not appropriate to define evil as anything that is not good just as it is not appropriate to define good as anything that is not evil. That does not allow for any middle ground or for anything to be amoral (not the same thing as immoral). Morality does not work the same way as theism. Theism is a discrete, one-or-the-other construct; anyone who is not a theist is by default an atheist. But on the other hand, good and evil are at opposite ends of a continuous spectrum, with infinitely fine gradations between them. That's what I think, anyway. The answer to your question, however, is yes. There does have to be a standard of good if there is also a standard of evil. And as I said in my last post, humans decide what that is.

[Darth Braun]

Well I'd say that's not a sufficient definition because it's in negative terms. That is, it doesn't tell you what evil is but only what it is not. And it's not appropriate to define evil as anything that is not good just as it is not appropriate to define good as anything that is not evil. That does not allow for any middle ground or for anything to be amoral (not the same thing as immoral). Morality does not work the same way as theism. Theism is a discrete, one-or-the-other construct; anyone who is not a theist is by default an atheist. But on the other hand, good and evil are at opposite ends of a continuous spectrum, with infinitely fine gradations between them. That's what I think, anyway. The answer to your question, however, is yes. There does have to be a standard of good if there is also a standard of evil. And as I said in my last post, humans decide what that is.

So each human decides what is good and what is evil? How would that work? Why would we bother having laws?

[gatorboymike]

So each human decides what is good and what is evil? How would that work? Why would we bother having laws?

Of course every human does that. We do that when we are exposed to a moral judgment and evaluate it. Of course, some people simply accept or reject a moral judgment based not on its content but on its context, i.e. "I've already decided to automatically believe everything in this book, so if the book says wearing green hats on Thursday is evil, then wearing green hats on Thursday is evil!" Laws are what a society as a whole (the majority of people living there) has decreed to be acceptable or unacceptable, and they are put in place to ensure the safety of those living in that society.