Sin, definition: an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.
Since atheists hold that there is no valid evidence to support the claim of the existence of god, there is consequently no divine law, therefore sin does not exist. Sin only exists in the vocabulary and minds of theists.
Granted, atheists can break the law and do things which are contrary to basic humanist moral principles, but sin, I don't think so.
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
The "religious" will point out that all humanity are sinners...... because of all that nonsense between the Mud Man and the Rib Woman , urged on by the talking ,walking serpent and the re-constituted Canaanite deity in that imaginary garden...
Anyone can sin. If people are not aware of a particular sin and they do it then it could be excused but if you are aware that something is considered a sin by the religious then it is still sinning, and ignoring the religious also is ignoring God. If you do not believe in God then that is the same as not acknowledging him.
I think you just confirmed my point that "Sin only exists in the vocabulary and minds of theists."
Nonsense, demonstrate some objective evidence that any deity real. Then do the same for your concept of sin.
Human fallibility as evolved primates requires nothing supernatural to explain or understand it. Which is fortuitous as there is no objective evidence for anything supernatural.
Prove that sin exists. Ready.... GO
You missed the point dumbass (Caitlin). Sin is just a religious thing. It doesn't exist, like god doesn't exist and evil doesn't exist!
"If people are not aware of a particular sin and they do it"
let me ask you cait.
how come god made these rules and haven't sin?? how come he called it sin? did god created sin?
think about it
Caitlin, you wrote, “If you are aware that something is considered a sin by the religious then it is still sinning, and ignoring the religious also is ignoring God.”
Which religions group and which god?
I'm just saying that sin exists whether you believe in it or not. You may not recognize sin but others could. You know what sin is and I think you're also aware for particular sins. You just don't acknowledge sin.
"I'm just saying that sin exists whether you believe in it or not."
No it doesn't, whether you believe in it or not
"You may not recognize sin but others could. "
No they don't, it's a fiction they have convinced themselves is real.
"You just don't acknowledge sin."
I acknowledge it's a fiction that some believe is real but that no one can demonstrate any objective evidence for. As I said nothing supernatural is needed to understand human fallibility, we are evolved primates and our fallibility is a result of our evolved nature.
It's a sin to think. All religions forbid it.
Sorry but I am unable to provide evidence that any deity is real just like you are incapable of providing reasoning that a deity does not exist. The concept of sin is real. What is considered sin happens everyday. What is different between people is if they recognize sin or ignore it.
Based upon what you know about religious issues, what's the least sinful thing that you can do?
"Sorry but I am unable to provide evidence that any deity is real just like you are incapable of providing reasoning that a deity does not exist. "
Your inability to evidence it IS SOUND REASONING that isn't real.
" The concept of sin is real. "
It's real concept do you mean? Sin of course is not real.
an abstract idea.
"What is considered sin happens everyday."
But it is not sin though, as nothing supernatural is required to explain or understand it.
"What is different between people is if they recognize sin or ignore it."
I have no idea what that means, but sin can only be recognised as real if objective evidence can be demonstrated for it. Simply pointing to something that is real and saying "that's sin" is nonsense.
"I'm just saying that sin exists whether you believe in it or not. "
N o it doesn't, whether you believe in it or not, check mate.
"You may not recognize sin but others could."
No you don't, Hitchens's razor slash.
" You know what sin is "
A fictional superstitious belief in something supernatural that no one can demonstrate any objective evidence for.
"I think you're also aware for particular sins. "
Nope, the concept is a fiction as far as I am concerned.
"You just don't acknowledge sin."
Nor unicorns, leprechauns, mermaids, garden fairies, dragons, wizards, or deities, as they are all fictions that no one can demonstrate objective evidence for.
Thanks for that thought provoking conversation. Your truths are not everyone's truths. You can reject what I am saying but at the end of the day saying no to everything is not an argument, and you're not doing anyone a favor by just saying no. The real definition of sin is an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law. When I say you're aware of sins, I mean you could list some off to me most likely. I would think if someone is arguing against sin, they would first have a concept of what it is along with a few examples.
"Your truths are not everyone's truths."
and your truths have to be evidenced, objectively. However a rejection of a claim does not carry a burden of proof, especially if no evidence was offered for that claim.
"You can reject what I am saying but at the end of the day saying no to everything is not an argument,"
Correct, that's because I'm not making an argument, I'm rejecting one that has been presented without evidence.
"you're not doing anyone a favor by just saying no. "
I don't care to do anyone favours when they make bald assertion for hokum supernatural claims.
"The real definition of sin is an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law. "
Then provide objective evidence for a deity then provide objective evidence you know what it wants, then provide objective evidence that what you claim it wants is moral, can you do any of that? If not then your claiming to know how to breed unicorns as far as I'm concerned.
"When I say you're aware of sins, I mean you could list some off to me most likely. "
I can list some of Harry Potter's spells as well, what significance do you attach to that?
" I would think if someone is arguing against sin, they would first have a concept of what it is along with a few examples."
I'm not arguing against sin, I'm rejecting the concept out of hand, in the same fashion you have presented it, without evidence. I have no need to do anymore until you demonstrate some objective evidence for your assertions. Simply citing human nature as fallible and immoral doesn't demonstrate anything supernatural at all.
"A transgression against divine law"?
So I can assume you've never killed a spider then? That is against divine law. Or, maybe you didn't know that, but now you do, so you no longer have the shield of ignorance.
Hi Lostlocke, I was quoting Caitlin, I am an atheist and don't believe divine law or sin exist.
Yeah, my statement was directed at Caitlin too.
I still keep forgetting that the quote function and order doesn't work quite the same as I'm used to on other forums.
Sorry bout that :\
No worries, the way the forum insert posts into the middle of the thread throws me as well.
@Caitlin: if you are aware that something is considered a sin by the religious
Which religious? There's a whole confusing and conflicting range of sins and sins of omission. You can sin by eating pork or oysters, by drinking wine or not drinking wine, by not mutilating babies. Not going to mass is a sin. If you're a woman, going outside with your hair uncovered is a sin. Having a blood transfusion is a sin. Drinking coffee is a sin.
I'm sure you'll tell us that your particular brand of godliness is the one and only true faith. I'll just stick to my evolved subjective morality, thank you. A plague on all your houses for all the misery you create with your twisted sin dogma.
-I would feel better if your truths were objectively proven with evidence. There is evidence to the claim, certain people do not recognize it as evidence though.
-You have also not provided evidence, so I am rejecting your non arguement
-What I was referring to is all the atheists who would like to hear your evidence. Your not making atheists smarter by saying no.
-I don't know what YOU would consider objective evidence but for sin, many circumstances that are considered sin-like, generally have negative consequences on humans. Alcohol can become poisoning if you drink too much. People can become objectified if you have sex with a variety of people. Gossiping behinds someone's back can be hurtful. Can you please name a sin for me that doesn't have negative repercussion? This is an honest question, I can't think of any.
-I love Harry Potter
- So you do agree then that you are aware of sin and ignoring what it is? Also I don't have to prove anything to you. There has been plenty of evidence in history and today but no matter the evidence, atheists will always reject it due to their inability to comprehend what God is. What kind of evidence would you ask for? God to come down to earth and claim himself God and perform numerous miracles? Oh yeah....
Oh, BULLSHIT Caitlin! You can't prove anything and want to switch the burden to us. WE DIDN'T MAKE UP GOD. WE DON"T HAVE TO PROVE HE DOESNT EXIST DUMBASS!
You do realize that as far as I am concerned, you and all the other theists cannot sin either and nobody goes to Hell. Doesn't that make you feel better?
Hell is what you think as far as I know. Hell is a place without God. Thank you for your kindness, but God has provided so much. I was not offended by your original comment if that concerns you, I just have a different view point of the situation. There are questions and debates on this site, and a lot of the questions are not usually accurate in the eyes of someone who is religious. I have never read an argument on here that shakes my beliefs. Most of the time, it's just people having miscommunication problems. Its kind of like people speaking to each other in different languages.
Evidence please.....Hitchens's razor is poised.
Does anyone else get the feeling this is just someone who has posted the same nonsense before under a different name? Or am I getting paranoid with all the dishonest evasion from the theists on here?
Do you accept the beliefs of others when they offer without objective evidence? Have you taken the time to study Scientology, Hinduism, Jainism, Mormonism, Buddhism etc etc.. How do you know they are not true? Their adherents make the same claims you are making after all.
You say, “I have never read an argument on here that shakes my beliefs.” Then I will ask you to take some time and research the actual history of Yahweh, i.e. non-biblical studies. You may find that originally, he was just a warrior god, equal to Baal and also equal to his goddess wife, Ashera. In fact, there was a whole pantheon of these lesser gods, of which Yahweh was but one. All of these gods had lower status than the god, El, as in IsraEL.
When I realized that the one god that I had been taught to revere, the one god that created the heavens and the Earth was historically just a lesser minion warrior god, sixty years of indoctrinated belief evaporated in a moment and I became an atheist.
Since that time, according to your definition that “Hell is a place without God,” I have been living in Hell and enjoying tremendous peace of mind.
Very good post, I am also envious that the truth came to you almost like an "epiphany", my own atheism was a slow slog that is almost mundane by comparison. Yours sounds like Saul going to Damascus, but in reverse obviously.
You saw there was no light, there never had been any light, and there never would be any light. I particularly enjoyed your last sentence, very shrewdly put.