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.

[pmprcv]

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.

Like you pointed out, sin does exist outside theist belief. Whether it is subjective or not is beside the point.
Plus it's also not about "admitting"; I can prove that you X even if you don't admit it, if X is observable. Like sin is.
Unless no atheist has ever commited acts that they regret or that do not respect others, then atheists are also limited and sinful. In fact, if no atheist is omnibenevolent then no atheist is perfect - which implies that all ahteists are imperfect.

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.

Here's something I found:
[/i]1.
the state or quality of being or becoming perfect.
2.
the highest degree of proficiency, skill, or excellence, as in some art.
3.
a perfect embodiment or example of something.
4.
a quality, trait, or feature of the highest degree of excellence. [/i]
So in this regard, a perfect person would have to be perfect in every dimension of what a person is: physically, as in overcoming injury, death, etc; intellectually, as in knowing all things; morally, etc etc. And this is only using terms that every person objectively has.

Damn I had more things to say but I forgot. It's 5 am here. I'll speak more when I get some sleep lol.

[thepandemicson]

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.

Like you pointed out, sin does exist outside theist belief. Whether it is subjective or not is beside the point.
Plus it's also not about "admitting"; I can prove that you X even if you don't admit it, if X is observable. Like sin is.
Unless no atheist has ever commited acts that they regret or that do not respect others, then atheists are also limited and sinful. In fact, if no atheist is omnibenevolent then no atheist is perfect - which implies that all ahteists are imperfect.

But I didn't state that sin exists outside theist belief. Being subjective is actually very much the point here. The issue with being able to 'prove' whether or not sin exists is the fact that it is (and now I'm repeating myself) a fundamentally theist concept. Theists see sin, because it's a part of their belief system. Atheists do not, because it's not part of theirs. Sin is intangible; it has no physical substance or qualities; it is, on the whole, a spiritual concept. Which is why it cannot be proven to exist outside of a dictionary.

Don't get me wrong (I say that a lot, too), I am not implying that sin doesn't exist. I have always been of the opinion that proof and faith are independent concepts. You can't prove a spiritual truth or belief (in this case, Sin), any more than you can have faith in scientific fact. They are two completely different ways of looking at things, and not understanding the difference between proof and faith has been the root problem in many arguments between theists and non-theists.

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.

Here's something I found:
[/i]1.
the state or quality of being or becoming perfect.
2.
the highest degree of proficiency, skill, or excellence, as in some art.
3.
a perfect embodiment or example of something.
4.
a quality, trait, or feature of the highest degree of excellence. [/i]
So in this regard, a perfect person would have to be perfect in every dimension of what a person is: physically, as in overcoming injury, death, etc; intellectually, as in knowing all things; morally, etc etc. And this is only using terms that every person objectively has.

Actually, a person doesn't have to meet all of those definitions to meet the dictionary definition of perfect. Seeing as each entry provides a slightly altered definition, a person would only have to meet one of those variations in some way to be able to have the adjective 'perfect' applicable to himself or herself. Perfect does not imply immortality, omniscience, impervious, etc. It's the ability to meet a standard and excel at it in a way that one could not expect more from the subject in question. This means that perfection is also subjective, as what one may be able to expect from the subject is dependent on the viewer.

An example; Your idea of perfection would be completely different from the idea of say... a dog, who would be happy with just a meal and a doghouse, no matter if the food is nearly spoiled or the roof leaks. That would be a perfect home, because he didn't expect anything better for himself. This is, of course, completely arbitrary and only meant as an example. I dunno, maybe somebody else would be fine with eating old dog food and sleeping under a moldy wet wooden roof.

[pmprcv]

But I didn't state that sin exists outside theist belief.

I was referring to the definition you provided, where points 2, 3, 4 and 5 explicitly state non-religious definitions of "sin".

Theists see sin, because it's a part of their belief system. Atheists do not, because it's not part of theirs.[/quote]
This I agree. But I ask you; do you know of anyone who is perfect? It's common sense; you don't even have to go to the dictionary. Is there anyone who never felt regret? Shame? Doubt? Fear? Is there anyone who never commited unrespectful or uncivil acts?

I have always been of the opinion that proof and faith are independent concepts.

They are indeed; I'd say that this is not opinion, but fact. If, of course, by "proof" you mean physical, tangible and universal evidence.

Actually, a person doesn't have to meet all of those definitions to meet the dictionary definition of perfect.

In order to be "perfect", one had to be "perfectly perfect"; fulfilling only one of the definitions would mean that that person wasn't completely perfect.
Another thing I just remembered is that perfection in itself is a paradox; therefore, no one who is bound by logic could achieve it.

This means that perfection is also subjective, as what one may be able to expect from the subject is dependent on the viewer.

This is if you mean "perfect for" or "perfect in"; not the universal "perfect" which would indeed mean ultimate perfection in all possible ways.

An example; Your idea of perfection would be completely different from the idea of say... a dog, who would be happy with just a meal and a doghouse, no matter if the food is nearly spoiled or the roof leaks.

Dogs don't have ideas.

[thepandemicson]

But I didn't state that sin exists outside theist belief.

I was referring to the definition you provided, where points 2, 3, 4 and 5 explicitly state non-religious definitions of "sin".

Actually, point 4 is circulatory as it's a verb using the noun function of the same word. And point 5 specifically refers to an offense of morals or principles, which in my book makes it the verb function of point 2, which also specifically refers to offending moral or religious principles. This would leave us with only point 3 being fully secular, and point 4 only supporting the non-religious definition 1/3 of the time.

Theists see sin, because it's a part of their belief system. Atheists do not, because it's not part of theirs.

This I agree. But I ask you; do you know of anyone who is perfect? It's common sense; you don't even have to go to the dictionary. Is there anyone who never felt regret? Shame? Doubt? Fear? Is there anyone who never commited unrespectful or uncivil acts?

Just because I have never met a president, monarch, or celebrity, it doesn't mean that they don't exist. This is not to say that any of the aforementioned are perfect, but rather to provide a support to this argument: just because I have never met a person without regrets, it doesn't mean that such a person has never existed

I have always been of the opinion that proof and faith are independent concepts.

They are indeed; I'd say that this is not opinion, but fact. If, of course, by "proof" you mean physical, tangible and universal evidence.

I mean that they are independent ideas. One of the biggest religious arguments I've ever seen goes like this (and I know most of you, religious or not, have seen this):

Atheist: I don't believe in God.
Theist: Well I do, and I hope you will, too.
Atheist: Prove to me he exists.
Theist: I can prove it by my faith...

This is an all too familiar argument in the making. Proof denies faith. Faith is the ability to believe in something that can't or hasn't been proven to be true; you just trust that it is with your feelings (and this isn't by any means a discredit to believers). You take a leap of, well, faith. If it's proven to be true, it's no longer an act of faith to believe in it... it's just common sense. Having faith in something means more than simply knowing the logic of it. It's an act of trust.
But many people muddle this up. They point to a bible and say "This is my proof". It isn't proof. It's your guide, your foundation, your reason for believing. But it isn't empirical evidence that can be submitted as the definition of physical proof of the existence of God. God is a solely spiritual concept (not a physical one, unless you can show me a giant footprint where he physically tread the Earth), and as such, cannot be physically proven. But it doesn't mean he doesn't exist, and that is where your faith matters.

Actually, a person doesn't have to meet all of those definitions to meet the dictionary definition of perfect.

In order to be "perfect", one had to be "perfectly perfect"; fulfilling only one of the definitions would mean that that person wasn't completely perfect.
Another thing I just remembered is that perfection in itself is a paradox; therefore, no one who is bound by logic could achieve it.

And that is your subjective interpretation of perfect. Therefore, by your standards, the achievement of perfection is impossible. If we are to play by the rules stating that in order for a word to be what it is, it has to meet every definition of itself in the English dictionary, we would have far too many subjects that remain undefined. Take a bat for example. Is it a flying mammal? Or is it a wooden club for hitting baseballs and the occasional low-flying pigeon? If it isn't both, then by those rules we can't call it a bat, and now the status of being a bat is an impossibility.

In layman's terms, by these rules, homonyms are an impossibility.

This means that perfection is also subjective, as what one may be able to expect from the subject is dependent on the viewer.

This is if you mean "perfect for" or "perfect in"; not the universal "perfect" which would indeed mean ultimate perfection in all possible ways.

This is because perfect can have more than one specific meaning, as I stated above. Which is why we can't agree on whether or not perfection is achievable.

An example; Your idea of perfection would be completely different from the idea of say... a dog, who would be happy with just a meal and a doghouse, no matter if the food is nearly spoiled or the roof leaks.

Dogs don't have ideas.

Dogs can dream. Dogs have brains. Therefore they can have ideas. Though, they may not be ideas we think very highly of.

[cubey]

Catholics believe both Jesus and Mary were both without sin.

So one must ask what did Christ mean when he said,
"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. "
'No one' meaning all of humanity.
This statement means we are all sinners and need Christs sacrifice to stand before god.
If Mary is perfect then she doesn't need Christs sacrifice.
If this is true then Christ must be lying, because Mary can come to god and stand before him without Christ.