Sins on Atheists & Other Religions

Mar 2009
416
0
Philippines
#1
Since I'm a Christian, a sin means that we have done something bad that is against God's rules or commandments. It is also said that God will always forgive your sins everytime you pray to him or simply go to a confession.

I have been wondering lately what do a sin means to other religions and to atheists?
 
Jan 2009
639
2
#2
There are really just two sins for me. I'd say that the vast majority of atheists practice secular humanism, which is basically fancy philosophical talk for "Be Nice."

The first is stealing. I'm sorta stealing this from Kite Runner (wrap your head around that hypocrisy :) ). Basically, physically stealing is wrong because you are taking that which doesn't belong to you. Murder is stealing a man's life. Lying is stealing the person's right to the truth. Generally all the true sins fall under the simple category of "stealing" something.

I'll also throw general cruelty in as the second. No real explanation needed.
 
Mar 2009
369
1
#3
I like that Parakeet - I never really put it into that perspective before.

For me, assuming you get rid of any religious overtones to the word "sin", sin is basically anything immoral. I don't believe morals stem solely from religion but rather from society as a whole and personal beliefs in general. Of course religion plays a large role in the society you live in, but general humanity plays a larger role. To me, societal morals were worked into religion, rather than the other way around.

For example, a few hundred years ago, it was considered moral to kill a scientist for blasphemy against god.. Societies outlook has changed, and therefore religion has been altered in the process.

As for specifics, your general: murder, adultery, rape, etc... all of which could go under stealing if you look at it in Parakeet's frame of mind.
 
Mar 2009
2,187
2
#4
I like that Parakeet - I never really put it into that perspective before.
Ditto for me too. Is it true that the meaning of sin is limited to religion only? You can't find sin outside a religion? I have been involved in discussions where it is argued that sin is only possible within the context of religion. My point of view is that sin has to do with a moral code and it can be either within a religious context or outside religion.
 
Mar 2009
416
0
Philippines
#5
Thanks for your honest responses. I understood it alot this time. Sins are not basically from any religion thus it is on the soceity. Plus you can also sin against fellow human, not on God only. Am I right?
 
Mar 2009
422
3
Florida, USA
#6
Ditto for me too. Is it true that the meaning of sin is limited to religion only? You can't find sin outside a religion? I have been involved in discussions where it is argued that sin is only possible within the context of religion. My point of view is that sin has to do with a moral code and it can be either within a religious context or outside religion.
I don't think the idea of 'sin' can exist outside a religious context. The idea of right or wrong, however, does. If I lie, I have committed a wrong, but I haven't sinned. I have done nothing to offend god, since I don't think god exists.

However, I looked this up in the Free Online Dictionary and apparently the meaning has been generalized.

1. A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate.
2. Theology a. Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.
b. A condition of estrangement from God resulting from such disobedience.

3. Something regarded as being shameful, deplorable, or utterly wrong.
intr.v. sinned, sin?ning, sins 1. To violate a religious or moral law.
2. To commit an offense or violation

It is also the name of a Babylonian god and is the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet.
 
Mar 2009
2,187
2
#7
I don't think the idea of 'sin' can exist outside a religious context. The idea of right or wrong, however, does. If I lie, I have committed a wrong, but I haven't sinned. I have done nothing to offend god, since I don't think god exists.
I agree with that. Sin is something that contravenes divine laws. That which is about right and wrong outside divine law is something to do with a moral code. Some of it, like murder and stealing are also contained in country laws.
 
Apr 2009
1,943
5
Disunited Queendom
#8
Fortunately for me, there aren't any really strictly enforced laws of Pastafarianism. The FSM provides a basic moral guideline in his eight "I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts" but they're pretty liberal in themselves... So, in the context of religion, sin is not really a big issue for me.

From a secular viewpoint, i think that the original intention of "sin" was to maintain a moral framework for society, but in Jewish/Christian terms, i think a lot of the sins outlined in Leviticus etc are a bit outdated.
 
Mar 2009
2,187
2
#10
There's really a religion centerd around pasta? Really?
I guess their serotonins must be nicely provided all the time. Pasta is supposed to be a comfort food. Ha! Always wondered whether food as a religion could be possible. A worthy cause for sure! So who is their God?
 
Mar 2009
369
1
#11
I guess their serotonins must be nicely provided all the time. Pasta is supposed to be a comfort food. Ha! Always wondered whether food as a religion could be possible. A worthy cause for sure! So who is their God?
Flying Spaghetti Monster is their God. The religion was created as an attack against teaching creationism in school. I think it was a MIT student who wrote the book of the FSM and what not. He then wrote a letter to the education board (I forget which State), stating that he thinks creationism is a great idea for teaching in schools. 1/3 of the time can go to creationism, 1/3 to true science and 1/3 to the FSM.

The education board at first ignored it, but it gained widespread publicity and they were basically forced to recognize the argument.

Pretty interesting stuff really. It's sort of become a symbol of freethinkers.
 
Apr 2009
1,943
5
Disunited Queendom
#12
Flying Spaghetti Monster is their God. The religion was created as an attack against teaching creationism in school. I think it was a MIT student who wrote the book of the FSM and what not. He then wrote a letter to the education board (I forget which State), stating that he thinks creationism is a great idea for teaching in schools. 1/3 of the time can go to creationism, 1/3 to true science and 1/3 to the FSM.

The education board at first ignored it, but it gained widespread publicity and they were basically forced to recognize the argument.

Pretty interesting stuff really. It's sort of become a symbol of freethinkers.
Yup, Bobby Henderson. And it was Kansas. Thing is, we've got plenty of (empirical) evidence for the existence of the FSM (Flying Spaghetti Monster). And our theory on the universe is definitely better than ID. Instead, we have UD (Unintelligent Design). Obviously, the FSM was drunk when he created humans and that's why we're imperfect. The "big bang", was, of course, the FSM falling out of bed with a hangover.

And evolution is also easily disproved. Man is no relative of the apes! Humans may share 95% of their genes with Chimpanzees but they share more than 99.9% of their genes with pirates. I think the real change is pretty evident here, don't you think? A fact that ol' Dawkins left out, eh?
 
Mar 2009
2,187
2
#13
Yup, Bobby Henderson. And it was Kansas. Thing is, we've got plenty of (empirical) evidence for the existence of the FSM (Flying Spaghetti Monster). And our theory on the universe is definitely better than ID. Instead, we have UD (Unintelligent Design). Obviously, the FSM was drunk when he created humans and that's why we're imperfect. The "big bang", was, of course, the FSM falling out of bed with a hangover.

And evolution is also easily disproved. Man is no relative of the apes! Humans may share 95% of their genes with Chimpanzees but they share more than 99.9% of their genes with pirates. I think the real change is pretty evident here, don't you think? A fact that ol' Dawkins left out, eh?
Not sure how to read this posting Dirk. Both in awe of the creativity and it tickled my sense of humour too. Bottomline I enjoyed it. Everybody seems to be so hung on their perfect scientific theories, including Dawkins, yet there is really no finite knowledge available. The equivalent of science having proof with no certainty of their theories, and creationists having certainty without any proof of their theories. I still can't figure out why they persist in debating one another. If one uses mathematics, they could never agree on anything.
 
Mar 2009
416
0
Philippines
#14
It seems to me that FSM is very interesting. He make man when he was drunk and big bang because he have a hang-over. :D
I like the humor though.
 
Jan 2009
639
2
#16
FSM is a brilliant piece of satire. If one is reading it with an open mind, then they should realize that most of his points have the same credibility as biblical literalism.

A very effect symbol for the movement really.
 
Mar 2009
422
3
Florida, USA
#19
I'm in Mexico, in the land of the Maya, where chocolate originated. Perhaps we should worship the Maya, as well as the chocolate. But I'm a purist, so let's call the Maya the originators or something, and work on worship of chocolate. We could call the god by its Mayan name, Xocolatl. I think I have that spelled right.
 
Mar 2009
416
0
Philippines
#20
Chocoholism probably from "chocoholics". It has a large following, but nobody has claimed it as a religion yet. :)
Really? First time I have heard about that.
But that name really sounds awesome.

I'm lucky that I came to Political Fray since I have got to learn lots of things that I didn't expect to knew from any other boards.
 

Similar Discussions