There is no sin if you are an Atheist.

[tucker58]

...

That's still not proof, it's a red herring. My hope of getting a direct statement out of you is dwindling.

Let me explain something, I usually come on here after logging roughly 2 hours of reading anthropology journals, sociology journals, reading history text books, or doing calculus. So attempting a self-inflation metaphor by trying to equate yourself with the unconquerable 'virus' doesn't go nearly as far for me as it does your ego.

Quite simply, you made a claim, I asked you to put your money where your mouth is. You have thus far failed to give the 'proof' you so haughtily claim to have. A handful more exchanges with you and I'll be writing you off as just another self-important creationist whose only 'proof' is his own conviction.

"A handful more exchanges with you and I'll be writing you off as just another self-important creationist whose only 'proof' is his own conviction."

that is the challenge and, "just another self-important creationist" creates and interesting reality. Those that live in glass houses should not throw stones."

Hugs

tuck

There is absolutely no scientific evidence supporting "evolution".

 

[kharisym]

"A handful more exchanges with you and I'll be writing you off as just another self-important creationist whose only 'proof' is his own conviction."

that is the challenge and, "just another self-important creationist" creates and interesting reality. Those that live in glass houses should not throw stones."

Hugs

tuck

There is absolutely no scientific evidence supporting "evolution".

ERVs
fossil record
observed mutation
observed speciation
butterflies
successful predictions
fossil layers
atavisms
and more

Your turn. More proof, fewer word games please.

You stated that you had proof of god's existence. Thus far you've done nothing but evade. Seriously, if you did have proof I would have thought you'd love to share it with this 'heathen'. I'm a rational fellow- my atheism is built upon a careful weighing of evidence available to me. I'm not even one of those 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof' types of atheists- I just ask for slightly more proof than other alternatives. If given sufficient evidence, I'll quite happily become a theist if not a christian.

If you are withholding information from me, you are not only insulting me, you are causing me to lie to myself. Just as I have a moral obligation to be honest and forthright with information to you, you have a moral obligation to the same. I find this evasiveness over the evidence of your claim to be insulting.

Either you put your foot in your mouth and got caught in a lie or you feel I'm not 'worthy' of god's grace. Which is it?

//I vote you put your foot in your mouth.

 

[puppetmaster]

love,

...and French Kisses.

Lol that's pretty funny

 

[Freodin]

You are also angry against people, not God.

tuck

I love that approach...

*poke*

*poke poke*

*POKE POKE POKE POKE SMASH*

#hey, would you please stop that?#

*Why are you so angry?*

 

[kharisym]

I love that approach...

*poke*

*poke poke*

*POKE POKE POKE POKE SMASH*

#hey, would you please stop that?#

*Why are you so angry?*

I know, tucker's pretty disingenuous when it comes to his 'debate' tactic. He evades, doesn't support his claims, makes clearly false claims, and in the end resorts to ad hominems. Notice how, after I directly contradicted his argument 'There is absolutely no scientific evidence supporting "evolution".' he completely shut up and *still* refused to answer my query for the proof he claimed to have.

 

[Ayersy]

There is absolutely no scientific evidence supporting "evolution".

Just because you keep saying that, doesn't make it true.

People keep providing evidence, and creationists keep ignoring it.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

What has evolution got to do with sin, or it the discussion a derail?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

In "Original Language", the base language for all indo-European languages and most American Indian languages and some other world languages, the English word "sin" translates, "Away-Unpleasant-Not". If we used that definition, then the word "sin" would mean, "'That which constantly creates unpleasantness.' or, 'That that does create unpleasantness.'"

From there one could ask, "Does a person's actions create unpleasantness for themselves and or for society?"

love,

tuck

Ty,Tucker. I think this is an interesting perspective: if we were created in the spiritual image of God, then our good ought to be good to him too, and vice versa. So, if the ultimate aim is to live a virtuously pleasant existence, then also God's notion of goodness could be spiritual too, insofar as his pleasure is in virtuous human acts, or he delights in his own virtuous pleasure. So, the theory if sin is broadly utilitarian, and there is no conflict between our happiness and God's happiness becuase we are spiritually, and therefore axiologically, alike. Therefore, whilst humanistic moral theology places man at the focal point of enquiry, it also consider's God good too, only from behind a veil. Man's pleasure (well gotten pleasure, not any old pleasure) is the likeness of God's pleasure, and the ideal end of Christian virtue. It is identical with God's pleasure, if not in degree, but structural kind; and true virtue is the only means to that end. There can be moral facts without God, but his existence would make things more interesting insofar as he views our responses to the trials of life from a position of authority and ultimate power. The problem of evil is partially the problem of how flawed human beings strive to be Godly. Not knowing that our bad choices will lessen utility, we miss the mark of happiness that God ultimately desires for us.

 

[The Nihilist]

I know, tucker's pretty disingenuous when it comes to his 'debate' tactic. He evades, doesn't support his claims, makes clearly false claims, and in the end resorts to ad hominems. Notice how, after I directly contradicted his argument 'There is absolutely no scientific evidence supporting "evolution".' he completely shut up and *still* refused to answer my query for the proof he claimed to have.

Man, do not feed the trolls.

 

[kharisym]

Man, do not feed the trolls.

Which one's the troll?

 

[driewerf]

Gracchus , your post is the kicker! No truer words were ever said!


tuck

Isn't this blasphemy?
And that in a thread about sin?

 

[razeontherock]

Primal Scream Therapy actually works !

Sorry, haven't checked in on this thread for a while ...

YouTube - Primal Scream part I Maynard Ferguson

 

[Valerian Red]

Well, let's work out what is meant by sin first.

Sin means any departure from the will of God. If He tells me to do something and I'm not doing it, I'm sinning.

Personally, I think the word is too wrapped up in its religious/theological connotations for it to be particularly useful outside of those contexts.

By definition, if God's not in your life, sin in any real sense is a nonissue.

 

[Eudaimonist]

By definition, if God's not in your life, sin in any real sense is a nonissue.

Of course, immorality may be an issue, but that wouldn't be considered "sin".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Valerian Red]

An atheist can potentially beleive in sin . . .

Does a thing or an act not exist if I do not believe in it? That is the crux. Where does that place macroevolution?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Does a thing or an act not exist if I do not believe in it? That is the crux. Where does that place evolution?

We're talking about perception. Sin isn't a valid concept for an atheist, but that says nothing about whether sin exists or not.

And just because Christians believe that they sin, that doesn't mean that they actually do if sin is nonexistent.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Valerian Red]

And what is this about being born sinners? I keep having this vision of a delivery room with policemen cuffing new born babies as they emerge. "Sorry kid, you have just broken the law. Have you got a licence to exist? Well you should have thought of that before you decided to be born."

If everybody sins from birth, then the policemen would have to cuff themselves and each other and everybody else on earth. (Ps. 14:1-3, 143:2).

Your vision well illustrates the tangle of trying to see salvation without grace (Romans 3:9-10). Christians sin too, as anybody watching the news knows (Romans 7:15-24). The policemen in your vision, assuming they call themselves Christians, are putting themselves under judgment regardless of their faith (Mt. 7:1, Rom. 14:4, Jas. 4:12). My guess is you've met some legalistic Christians but not Christ.

Re your comment about a cultural lottery, it's not. As to cultural, not everyone who calls him/herself Christian is one (Mt. 7:21). As to lottery, the Word may not reach literally all people by missionary efforts, but God Himself calls people who never heard of Him (Sheikh, B., I Dared to Call Him Father, Chosen Books, 1978; Eliade, M., The Sacred and Profane, New York: Harper & Row, 1957). It really is a matter of the heart.

I've often heard the objection "I refuse to believe until everybody on earth has had the same opportunity". Aside from the special election I just mentioned, that's where you might come in some day.

 

[Tinker Grey]

We're talking about perception. Sin isn't a valid concept for an atheist, but that says nothing about whether sin exists or not.

And just because Christians believe that they sin, that doesn't mean that they actually do if sin is nonexistent.


eudaimonia,

Mark

It seems strange to me to say that any conceptual things exists apart from the mind that thinks it useful.

So I would say: Sin isn't a valid concept for an atheist and therefore doesn't exist for the atheist. OTOH, this does not mean that some god doesn't exist who is offended by certain behaviors and thoughts. IOW, the concept of the mind can refer to actual things and actual circumstances but it isn't a thing in and of itself. Too, a concept isn't any one thing in the brain but rather a set of brain states that is probably in constant flux. It is our name for a set.

But, perhaps I'm too something ... can't think of a word for it.

 

[Valerian Red]

Whether there´s sin (in the theistic definition of the term, which - I think - can be summarized as "missing the mark god has put up for us", correct me if I´m wrong) does not depend on whether you are an atheist or not, but rather on whether a god exists or not and whether this god has put up a mark for us or not.

You said it better than I did. I said sin is a nonissue if God is not in your life; I meant a nonissue subjectively. If there is a God who cares about conformance to His will, objectively it is an issue.

 

[sandwiches]

You said it better than I did. I said sin is a nonissue if God is not in your life; I meant a nonissue subjectively. If there is a God who cares about conformance to His will, objectively it is an issue.

Agreed. I think even for atheists sin exists as a concept, but as Tinker Grey pointed out, not as a very useful one. It's like asking Christians if anything is haraam to them, not as a generic term but as a specific Muslim word.