The idea of "sin" is wrong.

[playhavock]

"Sin" is - loosly defined as anything that is agenst Gods commands and/or (the way god is) in fact, no one can not be in sin since God is perfect (apprently)
So, no matter what you do you are "wrong" and must be forgen (constantly?) for this, making one feel very down or bad on themselfs. I find the idea and very consept of sin to be wrong. Perhaps someone will have a difernet concept of what sin is, and I can analise that one and see if it too is offencive.

[playhavock]

That you are imperfect and commit negative acts all the time is true whether you believe in God or not.

There is no such thing as perfect, other then your subjective idea of what "perfect" meens. A hole in one on every hole in golf might be "perfect" playing of golf, or it might not. Depends on what you are refering to and who is asking. I do not see myself as imperfect in the way you seem to be sugesting it. I do not comming negitve acts "all the time" but they might occur from time to time, I strive for my postive acts to be the ones that I make and do.

The difference is, at least in christianity we have an all-loving and merciful God who can absolutely forgive our sins, whereas without God, you have to bear your imperfection and your failures on your own.

Good. I want to bear the burdan of what I've done, because I've done it. I do not nead a cosmic "it is forgiven" to make me feel better. If I've hurt someone, I seek there forgivness - if I can not get it, I accept this and move on with my life. Perhaps I forgive myself, perhaps not, whatever the case might be, I own up to what actions I've done or not done, because they are my actions. Seeking forgivnes from an invisible unspeaking thing was once something that I thought I should do, was once something that made me feel better - now however, I feel much better knowing that I take responcbility for my actions and turn not to cosmic invisible things for forgivnes but to humans who I may have harmed or if no one is harmed and I think I've done something wrong, then to myself to find out why I did or did not do (X) action. Because responciblity is part of who I am.

Forgiveness, ha! Your deity can not forgive, it requires blood death of someone who did nothing to forgive everyone else. Thats not forgivnes, thats madness.

[pmprcv]

I do not see myself as imperfect in the way you seem to be sugesting it. I do not comming negitve acts "all the time" but they might occur from time to time, I strive for my postive acts to be the ones that I make and do.

You just admitted that you commit negative acts. If you commit negative acts and still think you are perfect, then you are unreasonable and denying logic. You are either perfect or you are not; you admit you commit negative acts, therefore you are imperfect. In fact, the mere fact that you are human means you are imperfect.

Good. I want to bear the burdan of what I've done, because I've done it.

Then this is where we do truly disagree. I'd much rather rely in an all-loving and forgiving father rather than bear it myself, because I'm limited and human. We christians avoid arrogance by admitting we are lesser than God, and in humility accept that He can cleanse us of those burdens.

If I've hurt someone, I seek there forgivness

I own up to what actions I've done or not done, because they are my actions.

I take responcbility for my actions

Because responciblity is part of who I am.

So do I and all the christians. Believing in God doesn't invalidate this.

Forgiveness, ha! Your deity can not forgive, it requires blood death of someone who did nothing to forgive everyone else. Thats not forgivnes, thats madness.

I don't know what deity you're talking about, but clearly you are misinformed about christianity. Our God is love. I'd suggest you inform yourself about what you are talking about - ignorance is also a trait of imperfect beings.

[thepandemicson]

I disagree with the negative acts part. I understand there may be some teachings that preach this, but I've seen acts of wonder, mercy and grace put forth from people, both religious and non-religious. Not every act is an act of selfishness or negativity. Not every act is an act of self-interest.

I agree. But this doesn't contradict what I said. The fact that we are able to do good doesn't invalidate the fact that we also do bad. It's an observable fact. And because we do bad, we are flawed, imperfect.

I do not disagree that we as a species are flawed and perform negative acts. What I disagree with is the claim that we perform negative acts all the time. This implies that every act we perform is selfish or detrimental in nature, thereby being incapable of being a truly noble or selfless act.

Likewise, in contrast to the last sentence, I've also seen people who have managed to come to peace and forgive themselves without having to look to a deific icon, and people who prayed and prayed, but never quite found absolution for their guilty consciences.

And again that doesn't at all change what I've said. My argument was that "sin" exists on either the theist or atheist view as imperfections of the human being. The theist - at least the christian - has an all-loving all-forgiving God, who can absolve you if you truly regret and have the purpose to never do that sin again and the humility to beg mercy of our God. An atheist must resolve the issue by himself.

It's not that I disagree with what this is stating. I understand how a theist and an atheist view the situations, and I know that theists turn to divine presences for help and absolution, while atheists would turn to themselves or to other people. What I find troubling is the way you presented this; it's very one-sided.

I'm the sort of person who would like to see validation for both sides of the argument, so when I see a heavily skewed comparison like this, I'd like to see the alternative given equal status. Yes, there may be a kind, loving, and all-forgiving God there to provide absolution from the religious perspective, but from the non-denominational point of view, finding the absolution a person needs within himself or herself can be a very healthy, and very beneficial experience. Or even finding support among peers (family, or friends, or maybe even the victim that the troubled person has wronged) may be the most holistic and spiritual resolution that a 'sinner' could ever hope for.

[pmprcv]

I do not disagree that we as a species are flawed and perform negative acts. What I disagree with is the claim that we perform negative acts all the time. This implies that every act we perform is selfish or detrimental in nature, thereby being incapable of being a truly noble or selfless act.

Come on, dude. You know that "all the time" is just an expression. I don't mean it literally. Like saying "bro, you're high all the time" doesn't mean that the person in question is stoned 24 hrs a day.

but from the non-denominational point of view, finding the absolution a person needs within himself or herself can be a very healthy, and very beneficial experience. Or even finding support among peers (family, or friends, or maybe even the victim that the troubled person has wronged) may be the most holistic and spiritual resolution that a 'sinner' could ever hope for.

And these experiences can also be... uhm... experienced by theists. One thing doesn't rule the other one out. God forgiving you doesn't mean you don't forgive yourself and neither does it mean you can't find comfort among peers. The difference is, the experience an atheist makes a theist can make as well, whereas the vice-versa is not true.

[thepandemicson]

I do not disagree that we as a species are flawed and perform negative acts. What I disagree with is the claim that we perform negative acts all the time. This implies that every act we perform is selfish or detrimental in nature, thereby being incapable of being a truly noble or selfless act.

Come on, dude. You know that "all the time" is just an expression. I don't mean it literally. Like saying "bro, you're high all the time" doesn't mean that the person in question is stoned 24 hrs a day.

but from the non-denominational point of view, finding the absolution a person needs within himself or herself can be a very healthy, and very beneficial experience. Or even finding support among peers (family, or friends, or maybe even the victim that the troubled person has wronged) may be the most holistic and spiritual resolution that a 'sinner' could ever hope for.

And these experiences can also be... uhm... experienced by theists. One thing doesn't rule the other one out. God forgiving you doesn't mean you don't forgive yourself and neither does it mean you can't find comfort among peers. The difference is, the experience an atheist makes a theist can make as well, whereas the vice-versa is not true.

I don't know you, so I have no idea what "all the time" may mean to you. I have met people that feel that "all the time" isn't just an expression when it comes to the topic we're discussing; they actually believe that any act not specifically committed for the purpose of spreading their religion is in itself a sin, so I wanted to clarify my thoughts on that, having believed that to be the case of your statement.

I didn't say theists can't experience absolution through these methods. What I am saying is that one can experience absolution without having to turn to divine influence. I know I have.

The only disagreement I truly have with you on this, then it seems, is the heavily skewed argument in favor of theism.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing on theists or religious faith. I only want to be able to provide a clear and concise viable argument for the alternative way of thinking.

As for this whole perfection thing (and I'm not feeling the need to quote earlier passages as I think we've all seen the arguments here) I'm agreeing that there is no universally accepted state of perfection. I think that's all in the mind. If a person has all they need, and/or has become all they wish to be, then they can arguably perceive that they themselves are perfect. An argument against this would only stem from an individual who didn't view the subject as perfect, because that subject is not in a state that they, themselves, would desire to be in.

On a side note, playhavock, I think it's unnecessary to be throwing out insults or snide remarks such as laughing at one's religious beliefs or God. You may not see it this way, but a lot of people would consider that disrespectful. You can disagree with a person without devolving to chiding them for thinking differently than yourself.

[pmprcv]

I don't know you, so I have no idea what "all the time" may mean to you. I have met people that feel that "all the time" isn't just an expression when it comes to the topic we're discussing; they actually believe that any act not specifically committed for the purpose of spreading their religion is in itself a sin, so I wanted to clarify my thoughts on that, having believed that to be the case of your statement.

First off, sorry if I sounded obnixious or unpolite. It wasn't intentional and I did not mean to offend, but reading what I wrote again, it makes me look... unfriendly. I'm still very impatient but I'm working on it. Having said that, I'm glad it's clear now what I meant with "all the time": it is just an expression meaning that all of us have and will at some points in our lives commit sins.

I didn't say theists can't experience absolution through these methods. What I am saying is that one can experience absolution without having to turn to divine influence. I know I have.

Yes, I know what you mean. But what I think I'm not laying down on words correctly is the notion that "there is only one absolution": only God can forgive or retain sins from people. We can experience "human" absolution, or the feeling of being absolved, even without God; but in christianity, absolution is not only a feeling, it's a state which only God can grant.

The only disagreement I truly have with you on this, then it seems, is the heavily skewed argument in favor of theism.

I have noticed that I sometimes seem to try to make a case for theism when in fact that is not what's being argued. This is the case; I wasn't arguing for theism, I was merely pointing out that we are flawed, and that while on atheism one must carry that burden alone, or with other flawed humans, on theism we have an all-loving and all-forgiving Father that will always be there for us.

As for this whole perfection thing (and I'm not feeling the need to quote earlier passages as I think we've all seen the arguments here) I'm agreeing that there is no universally accepted state of perfection. I think that's all in the mind. If a person has all they need, and/or has become all they wish to be, then they can arguably perceive that they themselves are perfect. An argument against this would only stem from an individual who didn't view the subject as perfect, because that subject is not in a state that they, themselves, would desire to be in.

I understand what you mean perfectly, but I still disagree. From an ahteist viewpoint, indeed I'd grant that the word "perfection" has no objective, innate meaning. But this is not true on theism (or at least christianity): from this viewpoint, "perfection" has a very objective meaning, and we believe that it is a "property" of God. He is perfection.

Again, sorry if I lashed out.

[playhavock]

You just admitted that you commit negative acts. If you commit negative acts and still think you are perfect,

Did I say I think myself as perfect? No. I said I do not think of myself as "imperfect" as you seem to be sugesting. That does not meen therefor, that I conseder the other flipside to be true - since there is no `perfect' I can not be it, nor can I be `imperfect' as both are subjective things that are defind by the person who is applying them to themselfs - if you want to go with the dictornary defention of words I would still reject eather of them applying to myself.

So, no your strawman failed here.

In fact, the mere fact that you are human means you are imperfect.

If you want to think that way, I can not tell you that you are wrong, I do not see myself or other humans in such black and white tones.

Then this is where we do truly disagree. I'd much rather rely in an all-loving and forgiving father rather than bear it myself, because I'm limited and human.

Thats nice, I apprently do not require this and you do - no way to tell whos better off here.

We christians avoid arrogance by admitting we are lesser than God,

And then utter arrogance when you say your God is the only real and true God.

and in humility accept that He can cleanse us of those burdens.

Uh huh. No proof of that. Still , the idea of sin is wrong - your God made those burdens to take away from you. So that is still wrong.

I don't know what deity you're talking about, but clearly you are misinformed about christianity. Our God is love.

Love is nothing more then emotion in the brain, thus your God is nothing more then emotion in your brain, and thus is real in your brain only. Thanks for disproving it for me. Good work.

[pmprcv]

Did I say I think myself as perfect? No. I said I do not think of myself as "imperfect" as you seem to be sugesting. That does not meen therefor, that I conseder the other flipside to be true - since there is no `perfect' I can not be it, nor can I be `imperfect' as both are subjective things that are defind by the person who is applying them to themselfs - if you want to go with the dictornary defention of words I would still reject eather of them applying to myself.

That is false. You see, no matter what property you are analysing on a given object, it either has the property or it doesn't have the property. Something is either perfect, or isn't perfect, which equals to imperfect. You can't be neither perfect nor imperfect. And you can't be both perfect and imperfect at the same time.

So, you have to make up your mind. You're either blonde or you're not blonde, you're either french or you're not french, you're either green or not green, and your either perfect or imperfect.

Thats nice, I apprently do not require this and you do - no way to tell whos better off here.

I think not being alone is better than being alone.

And then utter arrogance when you say your God is the only real and true God.

That is not arrogance, that is what we believe in. Arrogance would be "we are better that you because our God is the only real God". In that respect, since everyone has a viewpoint on this subject, according to you then everyone is arrogant: every theist is arrogant because he thinks his God is the one true God and every atheist is arrogance because their belief that there is no God is real and true.

Seriously, learn to differentiate between different points of view and arrogance.

Uh huh. No proof of that. Still , the idea of sin is wrong - your God made those burdens to take away from you. So that is still wrong.

No proof of what? That we accept that He can cleanse us from our burdens? Sure there is. I accept it, and so do all my fellow christians.
And God created free will - it is us who choose to sin.
But even if one was to agree that "God made sin", this doesn't in any way change that fact that it exists on either the theist or atheist point of view. Unless of course one was to proclaim that he has never commited a negative act.

Love is nothing more then emotion in the brain, thus your God is nothing more then emotion in your brain, and thus is real in your brain only. Thanks for disproving it for me. Good work.

Quirky! Nice one. You must be proud of yourself.
Now, if one was to have the least notion of common sense, one would understand that what is meant by "God is love" (1 John 4:8) is that God is a personal Creator who is omnibenevolent. But hey, good effort.

[thepandemicson]

@pmprcv

On the contrary, I don't think you were being impolite or obnoxious at all. At the very worst, it felt like I have missionaries at the door trying to offer me something that they tell me I can't find anywhere else, but I interpreted nothing rude or impudent. I don't mean to seem offended, I'm just a blunt person and I tell people what I perceive. Sometimes I come off as overly direct or irritated, but it's not always the case. In this case, I find this a topic worth discussing, and you a person worth discussing it with.

SO...

Here's the dictionary definition of sin, copied and pasted from dictionary.com;

Sin
noun
1. transgression of divine law: the sin of Adam.
2. any act regarded as such a transgression, especially a willful or deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle.
3. any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc.; great fault or offense: It's a sin to waste time.

verb (used without object)
4. to commit a sinful act.
5. to offend against a principle, standard, etc.

If we look at this, we can see the very definition of the word is dependent on a theist belief. That is, excepting the third definition, which is a personal perspective, in which sin is like an adjective akin to immoral or stupid behavioral choices (which are subjective in their own right).

This also means that aside from that 3rd descriptor, Sin is strictly a theist concept. Unless one would use it to replace "wrong" as one might use "all the time" to replace "much of the time". That being said, no atheist will agree that they sin, because it is a concept that simply doesn't exist to them.

Similarly, if for a theist God means perfection (and God is the highest authority for them), then for an atheist (whose highest authority is mankind) perfection could be something attainable; all you'd have to do is to find self-fulfillment and happiness.

Flawed humanity is also a major theist concept... here's why.
The idea that we're flawed is dependent on the idea that we have a model to look up to, to aspire to be more like. For a theist, the choice of model is clear, and falling short of being like the deity you worship, you will find yourself to be flawed. For an atheist, or an agnostic as myself, this model is optional. If you find nothing that you want model yourself after, if you feel no desire or need for change, then you might consider yourself flawless. This would not necessarily be a sign of arrogance, you may just not see anything you want to change about yourself.

[ttruscott]

"Sin" is - loosly defined as anything that is agenst Gods commands and/or (the way god is) in fact, no one can not be in sin since God is perfect (apprently)
So, no matter what you do you are "wrong" and must be forgen (constantly?) for this, making one feel very down or bad on themselfs. I find the idea and very consept of sin to be wrong. Perhaps someone will have a difernet concept of what sin is, and I can analise that one and see if it too is offencive.

So here is where you get off track... "no one can not be in sin since God is perfect (apprently)"...to accept and follow HIS perfect ways is to be perfect. HIS ways are within our reach, we can understand them, and we can follow them, even perfectly.
The holy angels seemed to have gotten it ok.

The whole reason for our life on earth is to teach us the futility of sin and so to learn to choose righteousness and holiness. Those who can learn, learn...those who can't learn, burn.

But it is all based upon relationship, not law. We can only get to perfection with HIS help so if we put ourselves outside of HIS help...shrug.

Peace, Ted