Atheists cannot sin
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
"Hell is a place without God. "
Then I appear to be in hell right now. It;s not that bad i must say, I'm lying on my couch with the heating on sipping a cold beer watching the rugby, friends are on their way. Who knew hell was this much fun?
" a lot of the questions are not usually accurate in the eyes of someone who is religious."
Something is accurate independently of who is looking at it, and since you are determined not offer any evidence for the machine gun of claims you keep making the only rational response is to reject them.
" I have never read an argument on here that shakes my beliefs."
That tends to happen when you're so closed minded. Though of course no argument is required against any belief for which no objective evidence can be demonstrated.
"Its kind of like people speaking to each other in different languages."
Not really, it's more like a vastly different grasp of what constitutes objective evidence, and how much of a burden of proof claims have, so that some people don't know or don't want to know that epistemology demands the evidence is commensurate to the claim. When you and other theists ask what evidence atheist will accept, it should be obvious, as the same criteria applies to your beliefs as all others, it has to be objective evidence commensurate to the claim. All theistic religions and claims cannot be right, that is axiomatically impossible, but it's possible they can all be wrong. So what objective evidence singles one out over the others, and why do the others remain?
So you have no objective evidence for your claims then, and the best you can do is insist someone disproves them, this is argumentum ad ignorantiam, I encourage you to learn what it is and what it means.
"You have also not provided evidence, so I am rejecting your non arguement"
That's absurd gibberish sorry, how does one evidence an argument they have not made? You made a raft of claims, if you can't evidence them then this kind of evasion won't fool anyone, we're used to this kind of duplicity from apologists on here.
"-What I was referring to is all the atheists who would like to hear your evidence.
I have made no claims, how do you evidence a claim you have not made, you're talking nonsense I'm afraid. It's also absurd for you to start claiming to know what atheists want to hear.
"Your not making atheists smarter by saying no.""
Your is not an abbreviation of you are.
I am hoping you will be honest and bright enough and open minded enough to understand the epistemological burden of proof that you are ignoring justifies the epistemological razor that states:- that which is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence" It's called Hitchens's razor after the late author and polemicist Christopher Hitchens, though he didn't create it obviously. My constant rejection of your claims was to illustrate this, you seem to not understand it still unfortunately.
"I don't know what YOU would consider objective evidence but for sin, "
It's your claim not mine, so just offer the best you have.
"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."
That's just a list of human behaviours you think are pernicious, nothing in that evidences anything supernatural as I have explained. These all have perfectly natural explanations.
"Can you please name a sin for me that doesn't have negative repercussion?"
I don't believe sin exists as defined by religion, why do you keep asking me to give examples of something I don't think are real? Human mistakes are a natural aspect of human fallibility explained by the fact we are evolved primates.
"So you do agree then that you are aware of sin and ignoring what it is? "
No. that's a rather stupid lie? I have stated emphatically I don't believe sin exists, I'm not ingoring it anymore than you are ignoring unicorns..
"Also I don't have to prove anything to you. "
I never asked you to, I simply explained that your claims are logically negated if you assert them without any objective evidence.
" There has been plenty of evidence in history and today but no matter the evidence,"
If you offer no objective evidence then your claims are meaningless.
"atheists will always reject it due to their inability to comprehend what God is."
Another unevidenced claim, why do theists find this drivel compelling? You offer objective evidence and I give you my word I'll examine it with an open mind, and will only reject it if it is not objective evidence.
"What kind of evidence would you ask for? God to come down to earth and claim himself God and perform numerous miracles? Oh yeah...."
Again they're your claims, so stop resorting to ad hominem and offer your best objective evidence for your claims, otherwise I can only infer you have none and are simply resorting to dishonest evasion.
@Caitlin: Can you please name a sin for me that doesn't have negative repercussion?
Not circumcising a baby. Eating pork. Having sex without going through an Xtian ritual, using contraception, not going to church, not praying to sky-daddy....
inability to comprehend what God is
Hah! Are you saying that you do?
I berated Caitlin on another thread for speaking for god. Her reply is that she isn't the only voice. Well hell, That is just dandy. She's right, she isn't the only voice. The thing none of these voices are consistent or exactly the same which PROVES that they AREN'T the voice of god but instead just saying that they are the voice of god and then just voicing their OWN FUCKED UP OPINION!
So there IS NO SIN, just a bunch of fucking opinions by people pretending that they are speaking for their god. In other words, assuming authority that they DON'T FUCKING HAVE!
Thank for your berating. I always enjoy being cursed and mocked when I express my viewpoint. Sorry if what I said was offensive but that is never my intention when I post. I'm just asking questions and trying to clear a few points.
Berating is defined as to scold or criticise, since he was doing this over your endless and tedious assertions you don't attempt to evidence, it's hard to see what your objection could be. Beyond the usual theist sense of self entitlement for their beliefs which they view as somehow special and not subject to reason or logic as all other claims are.
You're quite simply wrong though, as all claims and assertions as well as beliefs are subject to same reason and logic and carry the same epistemological burden of proof, and this level playing field where they are subjected to the same scrutiny without bias or prejudice is called being open minded. Another phrase religious apologists often hijack but don't understand the meaning of. The only offence you cause is your arrogant assumptions that atheist have given these claims less reasoned thought than you have, which quite demonstrably is not the case, on here at least. You are not asking questions either, you're making broad assertions without any pretence that these require evidence to have any real meaning, and your questions are simply loaded appeals to ignorance, to try and trap atheists whom your posts quite clearly infer you think are less knowledgeable than you and theists in general.
If you think sin exists then start with some objective evidence, if you think a deity exists then start with some objective evidence. Simply steamrollering your claims into jibes about atheists denying "evidence" is fooling no one. Anymore than your laughable claim that rejecting these endless and tedious claims because they're not evidenced is "not making atheists more intelligent", as if not being superstitious and gullible has us off to a slower start.
She made a bare appeal to numbers, it's called argumentum ad populum, she also used an appeal to ignorance in the same post, or argumentum ad ignorantiam. It's sad to me that people believe they have compelling reasons to believe something is true, but have no clue about logical fallacies, epistemology, the burden of proof, basically know nothing about what makes a claim valid or an argument compelling.
Hey there, Caitlin. Welcome to the site. I've been a little busy today, so I'm just now getting a chance to catch up on this thread. Now, I'm not trying to be rude when I say this, but as original and as enlightening as you may believe your posts to be, I am afraid they are - sadly - nothing that we haven't already heard dozens of times before. And, as you have stated, you have read many other threads on this site. Therefore, it stands to reason you may (should) already be aware of that. Even so, I do understand why you feel compelled to at least give it a shot on here. 1. Debating can be fun sometimes. 2. It gives you a chance to improve your debate skills. 3. Gives you a chance to learn something new. (As long as you are open to doing so.) As I have heard said before, "You are not likely to learn anything new from people who always agree with you." (Or something like that. Forgot who said it, though.)
Anyway, back on point...
I noticed there were a couple of points/questions that were posed that you failed to address. (If you have already addressed them, then I apologize for missing it.) First, in regards to "what God wants." It is my understanding, according to the bible, that NO MAN can know the mind of God. Basically, he is suppose to be far beyond our comprehension. Yet, almost every single theist gets on here and eventually ends up saying in some form of fashion that he/she knows what God wants. Can you not see the contradiction there? And along those same lines, if God is so clear and concise and perfect in his instructions, then how do you explain the hundreds of different sects/denominations that have developed from the ONE "perfect" holy book (the Bible), that was supposedly the perfect inspired words of god? To put it another way, you believe what you believe because that is what you were taught by your denomination, right? But what you may not see (yet WE see it all the time) is that another person claiming to be a "true Christian" will come on here and often state their beliefs which sometimes totally contradict what another "true Christian" believes. In other words, if all of you as Christians cannot even come to agreements among yourselves about what "God wants", then how in the world do expect to convince those of us who do not believe that any one of you are right? Should we flip a coin? Do rock-paper-scissors? Spin a bottle? While you guys are arguing, bickering, and waging wars among yourselves over whose god is supreme, we (atheists) are the ones sitting in the bleachers with hot dogs, popcorn, and drinks watching the whole debacle like a circus. So, again, how do YOU know what God wants, compared to all of the other folks who claim the same?
Secondly (this one should be a little easier), you were asked if you accept the beliefs of others and if you have taken the time to study any of the other hundreds of religions out there? Do you believe in Buddha? If not, why? He is very real to those who follow him. Do you believe in Thor or Odin? If not, why? They were very real to the Vikings. If I told you I have an invisible unicorn in my garage who promises to take me to a wonderful Candy Land far above a rainbow when I die, would you believe me? Heck, I could even produce a book about it for you if you like. Basically, what I am asking is why should your claim about your god be any more special or convincing than the claims others have about their own specific gods? AND, why is it you believe in the god you have chosen as opposed to believing in any of those other gods who are just as "real" to those who worship them? Because until you can prove your god is "real" then the whole concept of sin is a very moot point.
Caitlin?..... Caaaaaaait-liiin...? Yooo-hoooo...! .... Odd... Where'd she go? Dammit, guys! Weze dun gawn 'n scairt off anutha 'un.
Hi Tin Man,
Hopefully she's doing one of those deep background search jobs on her best buddy, Yahweh.
She' telling all her theists chums how she tore the nasty atheist apart. Just like FIG and his bullshit about WLC destroying Hitchens with his equally risible common logical fallacies, and special pleading.
Just another drive by apologist. I feel used...
Caitlin pops in from time to time thinking that 1) people will take at easy on her because she is a woman and,
2) that the default is to obey and respect her religion.
She is sadly mistaken. I am particularly hard and vulgar when she pops in. I am hoping she gets the message!
Women like her disgust me. They think so little of themselves. They actually believe in male dominance. I have met plenty of women that are far superior to men, but none of them had a deep religious conviction.
I think the OP kinda misses the point in some way. I think the OP does raise a valid point. I think however that either sin does or does not exist. There is no middle ground.
So either everyone can sin or noone can. I’m also of the opinion that if sin doesn’t exist, then there is no God. And if there is a God, sun must exist.
If God doesn’t exist, sin doesn’t exist AND
If sin exists, God exists.
"And if there is a God, sun must exist."
Sun does indeed exist, it is carted by Apollo all around the sky every day.
(Edited for posterity)
@JoC: I’m also of the opinion that if sin doesn’t exist, then there is no God.
Why do you say that? Christianity doesn't own the word, despite its traditional use in things like the so-called "Cardinal Sins." It's just another synonym for crime, wrongdoing, bad behavior, etc. A sin can be an offense against personal or social morality.
People can do bad things without a god. Though as Steven Weinberg said, to make good people do bad things, it takes religion.
I never said Christianity. Also, I added something to my previous post. It might make more sense now. I kinda got the the stuff mixed up.
@ JoC " I never said Christianity."
It is a fallacy as it is circular logic:
an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.
"if God doesn’t exist, sin doesn’t exist AND
If sin exists, God exists."
Now show evidence that your god exists so I can accept your premise that 'sin' exists.
If you mean:
commit an offence, transgress, do wrong, commit a crime, break the law, misbehave, go astray, stray from the straight and narrow, go wrong,
Then your conclusion is another fallacy and a non sequitur.
God is not necessary for sin to exist.
Sin is not necessary for a god to exist.
Clear thinking must be so hard for theists.
Actually, exactly because of the definition of sin, is why sin cannot exist if God doesn’t exist.
In other words sin, by definition relies on the existence of God.
All I’m saying here is that either sin exists or it doesn’t (mutually exclusive events). So as opposed to the OP that atheists can’t commit sin even when theists can, I’m saying, either we all commit sin or no one does.
@ JoC definition of sin
No, please read my post; sin can ONLY exist if a god exists, they are not mutually exclusive in the first definition. as "a sin against god"
In the second definition " a wrongdoing or transgression' sin exists without god. Therefore you are correct that atheists , if they transgress can "sin" but not against a god.
Therefore god is in no way necessary for a sin in that second definition to exist.
I thought I had made that plain enough.
You should, as I did define your meaning before making a statement like "In other words sin, by definition relies on the existence of God" Because that is demonstrably false.
You said, “So as opposed to the OP that atheists can’t commit sin even when theists can,”
The OP does not state that theists can sin. And in my post of 08/08/2018 @ 15:56 I actually stated “that as far as I am concerned, you and all the other theists cannot sin either.”
I repeat, sin, as defined, “only exists in the vocabulary and minds of theists.”
" I think however that either sin does or does not exist. There is no middle ground."
Since the claims are logical negations of each other that's pretty obvious, I imagine that would apply to all things as well. The rest of your post seem to a collection of tautologies. As I said to Caitlin her claims require objective evidence, as do all claims. My thread set up for this purpose is not convincing me there is any, and this is not the first time I have asked or the first site I have asked on, and of course when ever I meet theists face to face and they make such claims the same request is met with evasion, with logical fallacy, with bare assertions again, and finally with derision as if their beliefs are ring-fenced from reason and logic, which is always of course an about turn on their opening claim that they have evidence and atheists are simply ignoring it. Atheist in my experience do not ignore evidence, they simply know what represents objective evidence that is commensurate to a claim. Atheist apply the same unbiased criteria to all claims as well, which is the very definition of open minded, but theists don't, as they never accept to exact same claims they make from theists of other religions or even other versions of their own religion. Of course they won't admit this, even to themselves, that's where faith comes in, as it enables people to believe things for which they don't have and cannot demonstrate appropriate evidence..