IIRC- there was no death in paradise. With the falling away from innocence and the aquisition of the knowlege of good and evil (rationality and free will) came the ability to choose death or afterlife. Man- left to his own devices- without example of the good (God)- will die without hope of afterlife...
The apple was in this scenario was a test.Whether the test is considered to be passed or failed depends on whether you believe that the option of choosing evil/death is a reward or a curse. Some might argue,however, that rewards earned are superior than rewards given...
Fascinating idea, savas. The apple, not as temptation but as a rite of passage, more or less a graduation into adulthood? Success rather than failure? Interesting.
Just idly speculating, how do you think your theory may be tied to a concept we've been tossing around lately, the idea of the man left to his own devices? I'm thinking that such a man dies like a beast, and sees nothing afterward, or whatever it says--as opposed to one who may have an afterlife.
Your theory seems to go along with that: Adam & Eve were as the beasts in the field, would have died without afterlife--EXCEPT with the falling away of innocence, they were no longer like the beasts. So maybe the trade-off (according to the Book of Savas) was that by losing the easy life, they gained the afterlife?
I think you may have the foundation of your new religion there, Savas!
Driven less, perhaps, by anger than by annoyance?
You suspect, with some evidence, that atheists have a desire similar to that of evangelists to convert others to their beliefs. Let me propose an alternate explanation for the doggedness you observe: Nonbelievers have neither the constant urging of a group to bring others into the fold, nor a desire to please a vengeful god. As a result, you don’t see them shouting their convictions into the air at speakers' corners or putting little atheist blessings on their answering machines.
A goodly number of atheists and agnostics are persons of a logical bent, who assess the religious structures of man as without evidence or logic. This is how they see it; so far, no problem, right?
Some people, sadly, are cursed with an intolerance of what they see as, pardon the expression, illogical babble. And some of them, when pressed, may yield to the temptation to sort at least that bit of what they consider disordered belief. It is not, you see, so much a defense of a construct they hope to preserve through eternity, but an academic argument for reason.
But I’m just guessing.
If I agree that your friend is inconsiderate to torment you more than occasionally with something he knows you don't want to hear, will you agree he's correct?
Nah, I didn't think so.
Well, you could be right. I personally think it unlikely, but true science operates on data. It does not assume the nonexistence of something merely because it has not yet been observed (there are exceptions, but not for ephemera). Still, one must not indict science because some person imprecisely describes its mechanism and so reaches a conclusion that is not, at present, knowable--true scientific conclusions must not exceed the data.
An exception to your hypothesis regarding consciousness surviving death is, of course, a man left “to his own devices,” who we now know "is like the beasts that perish" (Psalm 49:20) and will, after his death, see nothing.
Here's my take on the Adam & Eve story.
God placed Adam and Eve in the Garden. The apple was placed there as a test. Not a test of faith, but a test of worthiness.
you see, Adam & Eve were the equivalent of animals before the fruit of knowledge. They weren't thinking creatures. They did as they were told by God, which made them little more than pets.
Luckily for them, they passed the test. Given the free will to choose, they chose to take the fruit of knowledge and pass into the realm of being "A thinking being".
Leaving the Garden of Eden was both metaphorical and real departure. They were leaving the equivalent of god's Zoo, where they no longer belonged.
Actually, I beleive the whole concept of this story being "A fall" came about with the concept of original sin. It's actually a very old story, existing in various forms before Christianity and Deuteronomic Judaism.
Heh heh...that's it, I'm starting my own religion. I've got a God all packaged and ready to trot out, my limo's picked out (one for every day of the week) and I'm planning on buying my wife a pair of shoe's for every day in the year.
come, all yeeee faithfuuuuul....
I think I had in mind those that take their texts as "word of God/Science" literally. These types do tend to be zealots, you are right on the money with that. Anything that contradicts or doesn't fit into their dogma is tossed right out the window. I've yet to see a single text out there that covers every occasion.
the atheists that worry me are the ones who treat science as, literally a bible. I've been arguing with one right now on another site about where consciousness goes after death.
His position is one of;
"It doesn't go anywhere. It dies, with the body. Science can detect no residue that would suggest otherwise."
My position is that;
"Science changes continually, revising theory and making discoveries daily. How can you possibly say something doesn't exist when science is an incomplete base of knowledge?"
But he keeps coming back doggedly to the fact that "We can't detect it, so it ain't there."
True, most atheists aren't like this. But they have their zealots, just like the rest of us.
Us agnostics have it made, by the way. All we have to say is "Well, you can't ever REALLY know for sure, so..." and it's a real argument stopper. :)
I can understand the anger atheists have. They're often treated like pariahs or satanists for stating they don't beleive in God. It would me me bloody rambunctious if I was treated that way.