There are two types of atheists, one variety is sure enough if their own faith position that they can be generous to those who believe in a deity. Sadly the author of this piece is not that kind of atheist. Instead he is what I call the mean-spirited atheist who bends over backwards to spread his own view of the universe by mocking and deriding everyone who has a deity at the centre of their moral landscape.

I personally do not accept the existence of any supernatural deities and I find that belief in such things to be entirely illogical but I also appreciate that many who do believe otherwise have a great deal to contribute to the betterment of our society.

The author's faith in clear thinking and evidence is encouraging. Such a pity it was not employed in production of the essay.

The current religion du jour for the left is AGW. That religion shows no flexibility, transparency and is prepared to sacrifice the prosperity of the world on its alter.

Abbott by all accounts is a man of faith; as long as he supports democratic principles and individual rights not to share his belief he is well ahead of the current wretched government and the disciples of AGW.

LOL, the last line is the most revealing, most atheists are so devoted to their faith that they can't see that they believe in all the same things that the religious folk do. John Turner's critique of Mr Abbott's faith is akin to a Muslim taking a Christian to task over whose church is the most charitable or the more just.
Sorry John, I simply find it amusing that you call yourself a scientist then espouse a belief in the "common good" and "social justice", you're not a "scientist", you're just a technically literate Christian like Christopher Wren using his advanced scientific knowledge to build a cathedral.

In contemporary Australia, by far the most prevalent creationist belief system is the idea that in the State we have found a being that creates social benefits out of nothing but invasions of personal and property rights.

It is a belief that shares all the characteristics of blind faith and unclear thinking in traditional Christianity. The State is conceived of as a being over and above society, aiming at its own ends, possessed of moral superiority, as well as superior knowledge and capacity.

There is nothing this wonderful invention can't do: it cures the sick, it makes the rivers to flow; to adjust the weather we have only to invoke its coercive procedures. It knows what the distribution and abundance of all species should be. It makes real wealth - roads, hospitals, bridges - out of thin air by printing pieces of paper stamped with its own special mark. When it attacks countries on the other side of the world who have never attacked, nor offered to attack us, that is "serving the country".

It knows what everyone’s values are and should be, and of course it knows what's better for people, than people. For how else are its interventions to be justified, coercively overriding the people’s demonstrated voluntary consensual preferences?

Yet when we ask what is the source of the knowledge of this great guardian of the people from their own ignorance and corruption, the answer comes back - the people!

When we ask, if the statist assumptions are true, why unlimited State power and full socialism wouldn't be both morally and pragmatically better; they instantly contradict their own basal assumptions. Yet they still cling to them: they’re never able to state any rational principle by which state power should be limited.

It is this blind faith, on both sides of politics but especially the left, that the author ignores, which is far more intolerant, more powerful, more aggressive and more destructive than contemporary Christianity. It is the State religion that has replaced Christianity: the State as God, which Turner seems implicitly to embrace in this sneering supercilious article.

another athiest sprouting opinions with absolutes but unable to see is own hyprocrsiy for doing so.

John Turner as usual has served up a steam plate of bollocks.

As an Atheist myself, I ascribe to a belief system based on observable facts, such as most Christians while quoting the bible don't actually believe that the bible is the literal truth.

None of the quotes that John offers up indicates that Abbott believes that the bible is the literal truth, or that he would use his belief as any more than a ethical guide.

John in this article and previous other logically deficient articles proves that irrationality is not the sole purview of the religious

I don't know which is the worst: Julia the Atheist or St Tony!

What a choice people will have in September: Julia who couldn't run a chook raffle and Tony who believes in the greatest fraud the world has ever seen: religion (and I mean all religions, everyone of which prey upon the gullible and the feeble-minded).

Australia has lost its way. We are led by political morons and witchdoctors who worship the U.S., where evil reigns.

Time we had a big flood again, swept away all the current rubbish. Perhaps a new breed of humans might get it right for a change!

Everybody is entitled to believe what they will!
There are other ways of interpreting, in his own image, other than a literal carbon copy!
I believe most religious believers/students, now see the creation story as merely allegorical, rather than literal?
Most if not all non evidence based belief, has an element of brain washing implicated in it, be it literal creationism, or evolutionism.
We see the survival or the fittest or most adaptive as evolutionism, whereas, the very same EVIDENCE of adaptation applies equally to intelligent design?
If the theory of evolution were proven, all life forms would have evolved to a higher order, yet we still have single celled organisms.
Even so, some evolutionists are just as fanatical in their belief system, as many so-called religious fanatics.
And start a mouth frothing dialogue, if their "BELIEF SYSTEM" is ever challenged?
What we don't need running the country, is a person with any form of fanatical faith based belief system, be it McCarthyism or communism.
Nor do we need a dominating control freak, who believes freedoms should be religiously controlled or doled out, like Govt accorded privilege or favouritism!
This is why we still need a bill of irrevocable rights, that no extreme autocrat can ignore, remove or annul, just so they can wield more overriding personal POWER! [A smart party could even make a long overdue bill of rights, a dominant election issue!]
Fortunately we have a party political system and a leader entirely dependant on the party, for his or her leadership credentials!
And we now have a precedent for removing a sitting PM, if that PM appears to wield to much personal power, is too rigid, or is "emotionally" unwell?
Rhrosty.

I have been a labor voter all my life but reading of Abbot's speech has made me rethink.

At last a politician who bravely speaks about our cultural heritage in the face of the impoverished secular world.

In his speech Tony Abbott stated the following;
"In the garden of Eden, Adam and Eve believed they could do almost as they pleased."
If you refer to "people" in such a way it indicates that you believe they actually existed.

The statements that the author presented about the ages of the universe, our sun, the earth and the Australopithecine and Homo species are as now verified by the scientific evidence. Check out the latest "deep field" Hubble telescope evidence for example or Lawrence Kraus's, " A Universe from Nothing". The Smithsonian has an excellent site on the evolution of our early forefathers and our present sapiens species.

There is a link in the article to a German study. I have examined this study (earlier) and it makes a clear case that social justice leads to very contented, beneficial, and peaceful societies in in the Northern European countries and not one of the leading quintile is much influenced by religion. Another study, conducted by an individual, Phil Zuckerman, came to a similar conclusion.

One of today's comments by an admitted atheist in effect states that atheists should remain quiet. To do so allows the various religions free reign to indoctrinate the the youngsters in the coming generations. That is not in the interest of each child and appears to be in breach of some of the clauses in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (Clause-7 in particular). Australia signed up to the Convention in 1950 when it was in its earliest form.

Foyle.
Nope, science doesn't affirm anything, affirmation is part of a belief system, science creates techniques to make predictions about the physical universe, that's it's only function.
You can't hold a "scientific belief" it's an oxymoron and if you're talking about affirmation of the theory of evolution then you're not engaging in a scientific process, you're constructing a belief system.

As John Dickson said on G & A the other evening, "I get science plus Jesus."

This article is very much, "I'm right and Christians are idiots." There are many, many highly educated Christians who reconcile both worlds without any trouble, mainly because science doesn't actually contradict Christianity.

re; "Nope, science doesn't affirm anything, affirmation is part of a belief system."
That shows a poor understanding of science and of belief systems.

Belief systems are systems not supported by actual evidence.
I do not treat science as a belief system. Science is empirical and a Einstein suggested one contrary experiment or measurement can destroy a current theory.

After 153 years, no evidence to date has contradicted or undermined Darwin's Theory or after 106 years Einstein's. As one commentator recently wrote, "Evolution happens! Darwin's explanation is a theory explaining how."

There are many areas of science where the evidence has confirmed that the theory can be relied on. If that wasn't the case we would not fly in aeroplanes, use mobile phones or have people fly to the moon. In such systems the underlying theories can hardly be considered as unproven. The theories are beyond reasonable doubt. I use reasonable to mean supported by sensible reasons.

Put another way, Electronic devices work! electrical, magnetic and light theories underlie the design." The theories are proven in any meaningful sense of the word in its common use.

Yes John we hear you.

It must be very depressing to consider the prospect of Tony Abbott leading the next government.

Never mind, in about 3 generations you can give us the benefit of a similar review about the incoming Union/ALP government, Islam and Judaism.

Whilst you’re at it perhaps you might do an Hypocrisy Test and see if you can’t find some “Embarrassment Genes”.

I think the article missed the point. How many have actually read the entire speech rather than responded to the excerpts in the posted article?

It’s not the arcane Biblical references that matter but Abbott’s smarmy grovelling obsequience to his audience. It’s not hard to see whose interests he really represents when IPA sponsors include major mining companies, Monsanto, Philip Morris, News Limited, Oil companies, Gunns forestry, Murray irrigation and - thanks to John Howard - the Australian taxpayer even handed them $50,000 in 2003.

The audience included Rupert Murdoch, Alan Jones, Janet Albrechtsen and Gina Reinhardt and was hosted by Andrew Bolt - a typical cross section of Australian society or a collection of self-interested power brokers salivating over the spoils to come their way after the next election?

Of particular interest was his solemn promise to abolish the Department of Climate Change and the Clean Energy Fund when Combet has already abolished it. Really on top of things there.
Well at least among all the usual generalities he did confirm that Medibank Private was going to be sold off.

The fact that he selectively uses religion as a tool to advance his own political views is nothing to be proud of, particularly when he is a demonstrable liar and prone to tell people only what they want to hear rather than have convictions of his own - rather than those told to him by some of the names mentioned above.

Foyle

“To do so allows the various religions free reign to indoctrinate the the youngsters in the coming generations.”

But it’s okay for the State - a compulsory monopoly of force - to compulsorily indoctrinate the entire population for 10 years full-time in their formative years, generation after generation? The irrationality of this belief system is demonstrated here:
http://mises.org/journals/jls/19_2/19_2_5.pdf

“Belief systems are systems not supported by actual evidence.”

Surely it’s possible to believe something that is supported by actual evidence? I would treat a belief system as any system of beliefs. Whether or not it is supported by actual evidence is a further question.

“I do not treat science as a belief system.”

I think there’s a need to beware of a “scientistic” belief system. This is one believing that one’s conclusions are backed by science when they aren’t, because either or both
a) the process of reasoning to a conclusion is logically invalid or unsound and therefore unscientific;
b) the conclusion rests on value judgments that are not supplied by the science.

Many such scientistic belief systems are based on demonstrable fallacies but nevertheless are supported by massive government funding and vested interests in the relevant industries.

The claims of statists and socialists - democratic or otherwise - to the backing of science are laughable. These are better classified as belief systems of the irrational kind!

Foyle,
Darwinism is theory backed by the ARTS of archaeology and philosophy it can be conflated with a scientific methodology via a statistical philosophy within ethical parameters but it's not backed by it.
Read back over your posts and look at the way you've established these ethical parameters around "evolution", we're both actually debating from a philosophical point of view.
As a philosophy Darwinism meshes well with the other aspects of modernity, that's why it's so popular, it sits well within a Liberal or "rational" ethical framework.
You're also being coy, you know there are taboos surrounding supposed human evolution because the science doesn't back the artistic interpretations of Archaeologists and Philosophers, it's an ethical minefield for liberals and egalitarians.

Many people, especially those on the right side of the culture wars divide, like to talk about our Judeo-Christian heritage. But does Christianity really have anything to do with the tradition of Judaism, and what if it at root deeply anti-Semitic? Noting that right-wing Christians were always to one degree or another anti-Semitic. "Catholics" used to pray (prey) for the "conversion" of the Jews, and "conservative" Christian eccliastical establishments were oft times instrumental in wipping up hysterical anti-Semitism which resulted in anti-Jewish pogroms.

The "New" Testament is, at its core, and independent tradition. Christianity separated itself from Judaism, and became something else.
Unfortunately, in making that separation, the Jewish converts to Christianity maintained a claim on the holy books of Judaism, and they even claimed to be the new "true Israel" - and, thus, established a principal of cultural superiority that, eventually, gave rise to all the horrors of anti-Semitism that Jewish people have been made to suffer for centuries. As a consequence of Christianities absurd claim to be the rightful "successor" to Judaism itself, "official" power-and-control-seeking Christian-ISM has projected its own history as one of eternal (and, in general, disastrous, dark, and terrible) conflict with the Jews, and indeed with ALL other faith traditions and their multi-various cultural expressions.

Such is, among other efforts made on the basis of the absurd presumption of cultural superiority a negative result of the institutionalization of exoteric power-and-control-seeking exoteric Christian-ISM. Added to the absurd presumption of cultural superiority was (eventually) all of the inherently self-deluding and self=corrupting association with political and social power, when Christianity became established as an "official" State-"religion". with the power of Imperial Rome at its base.

By contrast Jesus was never talking about making an institution that would become the "official religion" of the total human world. Nor was he talking about the "one-true-'God'" that should become the "official" Deity of the total human world - which IS ESSENTIALLY what right-wing "catholics" believe and promote (their websites a full of such obnoxious claims and intentions)

All of the old-time state sanctioned "religions" are armed to the teeth and full of murderously reasonable intentions towards each other. This is especially true of Islam and Christianity, and to a lesser degree Judaism as it is now being dramatized in Israel/Palestine.

Meanwhile of course these two stark images tell us what Christian-ism as a would be world conquering power-and-control-seeking ideology is really all about.
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~spanmod/mural/panel13.html
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~spanmod/mural/panel21.html
Such is of course the benighted world-view that the IPA and the right-wing religionists that associate with it really promote - while all of the time pretending otherwise and prattling on about "freedom" and even "progress" too.

The IPA does of course have very close links with the right-wing think tanks that dominate the political and cultural shouting matches in the USA. Which in turn are closely associated with the applied politics of right-wing religionists. This site provides a window into the reality of their applied politics and intentions http://www.theocracywatch.org
As does the book American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America by the truth-telling author Chris Hedges.

Meanwhile of course the kind of religion promoted by the IPA and right-wing Christians too is only the most superficial and factional and often dim-wiited and perverse expressions of ancient power-and-control-seeking national and tribalistic cultism, and their murderously reasonable intentions. The "great religions" are of course nothing more than the historically dominant cults. Which in the case of Christian-ISM achieved its world-wide dominance via the blood-soaked business end of Constantines famous sword (as the images above portray).

All of the various "God's" of humankind, without exception, are nothing more than the inventions/projections of the individual and collective (tribalistic) ego's of those who promote and adhere to them.

Logic? A true atheist must have all knowledge if they are to categorically rule out God; therefore, by definition, a true atheist would actually be God. Atheism is inherently self-contradictory and must always be so; therefore, how can atheism be true?
Science? Who can reproduce in a lab what happened in the very first instance of the existence of the Universe? Where is the hard science supporting the beginning of man and the universe?
Myth? What is the legacy of the teaching of Adam and Eve vs the legacy of the teaching of the theory of evolution?
If we are created then it would explain why people (only) can make beautiful music (ie they are made in the Creator's image).
What does the evolutionary chart teach us? We have a dodgey picture of monkey, half-monkey, half-man, man, right? Now, what colour is the last guy in the evolutionary chart? If he's white, then there is a bit of a problem becasue the second last guy is nearly always black - what's the not-so-hidden message here? Whites are further down the evolutionary chain than blacks? The theory of evolution can't get around this inherent racism, no matter what colour everyone is at the end, the supposed transitional creature (for which there is no fossil evidence) is alway monkey-like and hairy and therefore dark in colour.
Give me Adam and Eve any day; atheism is illogical, self-contradictory, lacking in real, hard science and fundamentally racist.
Who wants those qualities in a would-be PM?

Jay Of Melbourne wrote;"You're also being coy, you know there are taboos surrounding supposed human evolution.........."
Taboos do not influence my interpretation of evidence supported theories and artistic interpretations hardly seem relevant. I am more interested in the radiation based scientific dating methods and results used to determine the ages of fossils, and home sites etc and in all the available evidence.

I accept that some of our Australopithecine ancestors went hunting armed with weapons and that "man the tool maker" is a misnomer. Firstly our earliest, upright walking, ancestors tools were weapons, primarily for hunting, but sometimes for fighting and home and hunting range defense.

I have looked but never found any attempt to destroy all 24 of Ardrey's lines of evidence to support his reasoning about africanus's hunting implements. That reasoning was based on the excellent work of an Australian anatomist and anthropologist, Raymond Dart.

The article author used Ardrey's term Risen Ape, a term used by Andrew Denton a few years ago in a SM Herald diary piece. I saved Denton's article which uses another quote, first written by Ardrey at the end of his major investigation of the evidence; "The miracle of man is not how far he has sunk but how magnificently he has risen. We are known among the stars by our poems, not our corpses".

Indoctrination teaches young children just the opposite.

TAC

nice to know that their are a few more that don't swallow the evolution fantasy dressed up in pseudo science and hoisted upon our kids. Our current PM has done more damage in a few short years than other PM's of varying beliefs. Still those of the secular faith will dream up some evidence in order to remain in denial.

What could be more illogical in 2013 than believing in the presumed "resurrection" of Jesus (which never occurred), and that one is somehow "saved" by that presumed event. And using or appealing to the usual childishly naive dim-witted misunderstanding of the old-time fairy stories of Adam and Eve, as a basis for living with Real Intelligence in the 21st century?
This essay provides a unique esoteric Understanding of the Biblical Adam and Eve myth.
http://www.beezone.com/adidajesus/adamnervoussystemeveflesh.html

Plus the essay below describes how the Process of evolution as it relates to human beings really works. In it the author points out that human beings are now living way way down on the scale of their intrinsic evolutionary possibilities, and that our dim-witted exoteric religion actually prevents any further growth or development of such possibilities. Elsewhere (including the website which features the essay) he also points out that the "culture" created in the image of scientism also prevents the emergence of any such developments too. Even more so, and catastrophically too.

http://www.aboutadidam.org/readings/divine_physics_of_evolution/index.html

Foyle.
I forget sometimes that it's impossible to argue with you people, the only point I want to make is that an artist and philosopher has no business hectoring a religious person and accusing them of ignoring or misrepresenting science.
Dart, Ardrey, Leakey, Stephen Jay Gould, Vere Gordon Childe and all the other artists and philosopers of paleoanthropology, sociobiology, archaeology and history are expressing a set of beliefs.
Carbon dating proved the age of Leakey's fossils, the location of the finds made it statistically PROBABLE but not certain that they all came from the same animal or same sort of animal. Analysis of the morphology of said fossils and comparative anatomy (statistics again) allowed these artists and philosophers to elaborate on their artistic impression of animal remains which they had interpreted as a "Hominid".
You surely must concede that "Out Of Africa" is a set of beliefs with severe ethical restrictions and corresponding codes of conduct attached, as I've said, it's a minefield.
The lack of academic contradiction of this world view can be easily explained by looking at other taboos such as Holocaust revisionism which is illegal in many European countries. The body representing French historians even went so far as to produce a statement declaring any study which contradicts the official history of Gas/Cremate, six million to be unethical and unsuitable for peer review or publication, even though there has never been an official scientific or even artistic/archaeological investigation of the claims made at Nuremberg and since about those four camps in Poland.
I've explained my point of view, it's not even really so far removed from your own in that I accept that evolution is statistically probable, I just don't hold any beliefs on any such matter and don't see science as capable of "affirming" an artistic impression of the world.

Some things never change.

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful" - Seneca (ca. 4 BC –AD 65)

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher". - Lucretius (94 BC - 49 BC)

Another wanna-be Tea Party Assembly with a few dropped religious references and everybody jumps onto their bandwagons - evolution, creationism, atheism and so on but no discussion of any real issues related to the substance of the meeting itself.

Rupert would be pleased.

This article makes a very good point about how Abbott's belief is a critical part of how he views the world, and is not just "an ethical guide".

John is provocative - I would not have used the term "raving theologians". Still, I don't think there are any problems with the article that devalue its main point. Do we claim that the tiniest imperfection renders something worthless ? All too much political comment is like that, together with an attack on the person rather than the ideas.

Regardless of the nature of atheism and how John relates to it, he makes good points about how Abbott's religious influence, how less religious countries are in fact freer, and how the IPA has promoted views that deny the workings of a positive democracy.

We've a string of bland assertions without any detail with do not engage with anything in the article, as noted by rache.

Proof by strong assertion.

A secular world "impoverished" ? Well, Secular nations are a lot freer, as noted by John. Go figure.

Seneca and Lucretius observe how religion is used by politicians - when Abbott talks about religion, it seems to me he is talking about these things being *true* because they've been ordained by God. They're not just "informing" him.

You can speak separately of some lessons from the bible. Its valid to observe that you should "not do as you please". Yes. However, to say you'd be "[un]worthy of creation in the image of God" ... well, that loses me. It seems to me it is *not* being quoted out of context - Abbott is saying these things are true *because God says so*. He's not merely being "informed" by these ideas.

Some Christian sentiments have worth buried within them, but the link to God is problematic. Those who defend Abbott are noting one thing and ignoring another.

Science and religion not in conflict ? Depends on where you look. There was Gallileo and the Church. Even today, many churches have issues with Evolution - just look at the posts here. Some believers may assert that religion and belief are conciliable, but that belies what's you can see all around.

There's good reason for John focusing on his topics, and it his choice to focus on what he finds important. But a string of people have queued up to say that something else is in fact most important. Well, look - write an article on OLO, and I'll then post a comment to it saying that the influence of religion on politics is more important than the point that you're trying to make. Heck, maybe you'll make it in a considered way. But I'll still ignore completely ignore what you're saying and claim that my own issues are more important than yours. Good stuff.

As an atheist, I'm happy to acknowledge the positive contribution of denominations like the Uniting Chuch, and the perogative to believe. But I do not claim total knowledge - I'm willing to acknowledge the possibility of a creator-god (Deism), but having a creator God tells us nothing about how to lead our lives or relate to the world. Reason tells you what to do. God is silent. If he had an intention, it was for us to figure it out ourselves.

As for the ensemble of the "Judaeo-Christian Loving Interventionist God" - there I'm definitely an atheist. I don't claim to know everything, but that God is inconsistent with what I see around me.

Devoted to my atheism like others are devoted to their faith ? I'd like to think I'm thinking about what's going on, for myself and in my own way, but I'll leave it for others to judge.

I think John writes a good article. Others can think what they will - its a free country !

“Obviously the causes which I prefer, social justice, the Common Good and an education which teaches children how to look for and evaluate evidence, is not part of the agenda of neo-liberals or the Institute of Public Affairs.”
The Common Good – I wonder where that came from, John? It’s mentioned a lot in Catholicism. Social justice – look up Rerum Novarum,John, an encyclical of Pope Leo III which is all about social justice and egalitarianism. Ie. All for giving dignity to workers and not to treat them as slaves. Evidence – why don’t you go reach for the stars. The Vatican has it’s own Astronomy academies in several locations around the world and in it’s own state. Are you saying there are no Christian scientists? History begs to differ and it was a Jesuit priest who invented the Big Bang theory, and now with the recent Higgs discovery (God Particle) appears to back it up, don't you reckon?
Cont...

“As Christopher Hitchens wrote: Faith is the surrender of the mind; it's the surrender of reason, it's the surrender of the only thing that makes us different from other mammals.”
Yes, surrendering does make us different from mammals. I think your confused point has backfired, John.

Brian Eno said: “I realised I was a lapsed atheist when the Four Horseman (of New Atheism) started writing their books - Dawkins, Dennet, Sam Harris, C Hitchens,” he explains. They all wrote books that were very, very anti-religious and…. I baulked. I love gospel music, you see. I probably listen to it more than anything else. And I thought, What am I actually liking? It isn’t the celebration of God or some form of belief. What I’m enjoying is hearing people “surrendering”, letting go and becoming part of something. And if you think about the great human desires - sex, drugs, art and religion – what are those except different ways of saying, I want to be other or more or different from just me?”

We may just find that there may be less egomania and narcissism in this world if there was more surrendering.

Hitchen’s, was full of hatred of religion who loved to pick on one particularly small Albanian woman who surrendered herself to the poor and suffering. Wasn’t Hitch supposed to be a misogynist? Funny he has a brother, Peter who is a prominent proponent of Christianity.

Oh goodness, these New Atheists are only fundamentalists after all, and their militancy and extremism is just plain scary. How can anyone take these people seriously.

Constance wrote;
"Yes, surrendering does make us different from mammals".
You have completely misunderstood what the author had written in the article. The author quoted Hitchens as stating; "Faith is the surrender of the mind; it's the surrender of the only thing that makes us different from other mammals."

You completely ignored the "other" in front of mammals in the quote.

Hitchens was not writing about surrender in any 'fighting animal' fashion. Surrender often means giving up your own use of something and, in the context used, surrender means failing to make full use of something; in this case failing to make full use of the reasoning power of the mind.

But John, one thing I do agree with you with is Abbott's take on Murdoch - the Dirty Digger as he was once known, and that which he still is.

Daffy Duck, you correctly make a link between Adam and Eve and Christ's resurrection - they do indeed both stand or fall together. The Bible teaches both that there was a time-space historical first Adam and that Christ is the time-space historical Second Adam.
As you probably know, Adam is taught in Genesis (the first book of the Bible)as falling into sin which permeates all men and women from that time forward (see tonight's news on tele for proof that sin exists). A promised Messiah to save us from sin is the theme of the Old Testament; all of which Christ claims to have fulfilled in the New Testament. The logic of the resurrection is: sin exists, God is holy and cannot commit sin, God's holy character requires a penalty to be exacted for sin. Only a perfect sacrifice mirroring the gory blood sacrifices of the Old Testament animal sacrifices can secure atonement (again foresahadowed in the Jewish Day of Atonement still celebrated to to this day). Therefore, a perfect once-for-all sacrifice had to be made. Christ, being in nature both God and man was able to meet the perfect requirements of the law and provide that atoning work. Christ being perfect was therefore unable to stay dead as death is the ultimate penalty for sin. Therefore, he had to rise from the dead.
That's Bible logic in a nutshell.
What do you think of that Daffy Duck?