Sinning

[Mr.Badham]

As an atheist, I cannot sin. I don't believe there are such things as "sins".

I know what I believe to be good and bad, and I don't have a real problem doing what I believe to be good, and I don't have a real problem not doing what I believe to be bad.

I am under no threat of eternal damnation, cause I don't believe in it.

So seriously, if you believe that your eternal soul could possibly be damned for all time, wouldn't it be easy not to sin?

[OnceConvinced]

I agree, sinning is not easy at all. In fact there are many things I could not possibly do because I would struggle with the morality of it. I would be continually beating myself up over those things.

It's way easier as far as I can see to be non-sinful. It gives me way less anguish and makes me feel good about myself.

[Divine Insight]

As an atheist, I cannot sin. I don't believe there are such things as "sins".

I know what I believe to be good and bad, and I don't have a real problem doing what I believe to be good, and I don't have a real problem not doing what I believe to be bad.

Actually depending on how you define the term "sin", you could believe in "sin" as an atheist by simply defining the concept of "Secular Sins". These would simply be the things that you personally believe to be "Bad" or "wrong".

I too have no problem doing what I believe to be good, and not doing what I believe to be bad or wrong.

I also confess that there are many things that are difficult to label either way. For example is it bad or wrong for me to choose to practice the saxophone today instead of getting firewood? Actually if I were a Christian I wouldn't dare get firewood today since today is Sunday. But I did sharpen my chainsaws today and I would have gone to get the firewood by my tractor had a flat tire. So instead of fixing the flat tire I came in and played the saxophone and say "To hell with getting firewood today".

Christians would probably think that a guardian angel was watching over me.

But actually I collect firewood on Sundays quite often.

I don't consider collecting firewood on Sunday to be "bad or wrong". So for me it's not a "sin".

I don't think its a sin to play the saxophone instead of fixing the flat tire either. But I might consider it to have been a sin when I actually have to fix the flat tire tomorrow.

If I don't get the firewood I'll eventually be cast into the pits of a deep freeze. No God or Devil required. It's just wintertime here. And that would be "bad", so not getting the firewood at some point will result in "bad" since freezing is bad.

So to not get the firewood in a timely fashion ends up being a sin. I have no choice on that one. I can't change the weather.

[bluethread]

As an atheist, I cannot sin. I don't believe there are such things as "sins".

I know what I believe to be good and bad, and I don't have a real problem doing what I believe to be good, and I don't have a real problem not doing what I believe to be bad.

Actually depending on how you define the term "sin", you could believe in "sin" as an atheist by simply defining the concept of "Secular Sins". These would simply be the things that you personally believe to be "Bad" or "wrong".

I too have no problem doing what I believe to be good, and not doing what I believe to be bad or wrong.

I also confess that there are many things that are difficult to label either way. For example is it bad or wrong for me to choose to practice the saxophone today instead of getting firewood? Actually if I were a Christian I wouldn't dare get firewood today since today is Sunday. But I did sharpen my chainsaws today and I would have gone to get the firewood by my tractor had a flat tire. So instead of fixing the flat tire I came in and played the saxophone and say "To hell with getting firewood today".

Christians would probably think that a guardian angel was watching over me.

But actually I collect firewood on Sundays quite often.

I don't consider collecting firewood on Sunday to be "bad or wrong". So for me it's not a "sin".

I don't think its a sin to play the saxophone instead of fixing the flat tire either. But I might consider it to have been a sin when I actually have to fix the flat tire tomorrow.

If I don't get the firewood I'll eventually be cast into the pits of a deep freeze. No God or Devil required. It's just wintertime here. And that would be "bad", so not getting the firewood at some point will result in "bad" since freezing is bad.

So to not get the firewood in a timely fashion ends up being a sin. I have no choice on that one. I can't change the weather.

That is the fallacy of movable goal posts. Sure you have a choice as to whether gathering fire wood is a sin or not, since you are the sole determinant of what is sin, in your system. However, if contrary to the tone of your post, you consider freezing to death an absolute sin, then you would have to consider the Donner party to have sinned.

[Divine Insight]

That is the fallacy of movable goal posts. Sure you have a choice as to whether gathering fire wood is a sin or not, since you are the sole determinant of what is sin, in your system. However, if contrary to the tone of your post, you consider freezing to death an absolute sin, then you would have to consider the Donner party to have sinned.

First off, if you are defining what you mean by "sin" yourself then you are indeed free to define what it means to "sin". In the case of the OP the definition of "sin" that has been offered is that which is "bad".

So if you are going to define sin based on what is "bad" then you need to decide what constitutes "bad".

If I know that the only way to stay warm is by getting firewood AND I have the means to get the firewood AND I make an arbitrary choice not to be 'bothered" getting the firewood simply because I don't feel like doing it. Then my choice to not get the firewood will result in something "bad" happening.

Based on logical reasoning here we could work out then that I was the "cause" of something bad happening. Even though I didn't personally create the freezing winter weather. I knew it was coming, I had the resources to do something to prevent myself from freezing, and I chose not to take that course of action because I was too lazy or had other far less important things I would rather do.

I don't see where you can say that I'm "moving a goalpost" here.

However, in this scenario there are other options to avoid the "bad" thing from happening. For example, I could run out and buy a tank of propane gas and heat with that.

If I did that, then failing to obtain the firewood would no longer be a "sin" because I avoided the "bad" thing using another method.

The actual "sin" would be to allow a bad thing to happen when it was clearly within my power to prevent it from happening.

So underneath it all it really has nothing to do with getting firewood. It has to do with failing to prevent something bad from happening that I could see coming and could prevent but chose not to prevent.

I'm not sure what you mean by comparing this with the Donner party. Were they negligent and responsible for the bad thing that happened to them? Or were they taken by surprise by an event they simply could not overcome. That's a BIG DIFFERENCE.

It can't be considered to be a "sin" if something bad happens to you that you could not prevent and was not your fault.

But if I don't get firewood here were I live that's my fault!

At least as long as I have the ability to go get it. It's not my fault the tractor has a flat tire. But it is my fault that I chose to play the saxophone today instead of fixing the flat tire.

So if we want to "nit-pick" we could say that I was "sinning" today when playing the sax instead of fixing the flat tire which is MORE IMPORTANT.

I should add that we're supposed to have some pretty warm weather here for the next week or so, so I should have time to make amends before it freezes again.

The window of opportunity for repentance and restitution is still open.

In fact, I knew that was the case and that's why it was an easy decisions to take the rest of the day off and play the sax. If I thought it was going to freeze again real quick I would have done the hard labor.

In fact, you bring up a very good question. If you can do something that won't harm you or others can it even be called a "sin"?

Maybe I shouldn't feel guilty of having played the sax today instead of fixing the flat tire.

I'm not a "sinner" after all. Yippee!

[bluethread]

That is the fallacy of movable goal posts. Sure you have a choice as to whether gathering fire wood is a sin or not, since you are the sole determinant of what is sin, in your system. However, if contrary to the tone of your post, you consider freezing to death an absolute sin, then you would have to consider the Donner party to have sinned.

First off, if you are defining what you mean by "sin" yourself then you are indeed free to define what it means to "sin". In the case of the OP the definition of "sin" that has been offered is that which is "bad".

So if you are going to define sin based on what is "bad" then you need to decide what constitutes "bad".

If I know that the only way to stay warm is by getting firewood AND I have the means to get the firewood AND I make an arbitrary choice not to be 'bothered" getting the firewood simply because I don't feel like doing it. Then my choice to not get the firewood will result in something "bad" happening.

That is because you define freezing to death as bad. Is this an absolute or just your personal decision?

Based on logical reasoning here we could work out then that I was the "cause" of something bad happening. Even though I didn't personally create the freezing winter weather. I knew it was coming, I had the resources to do something to prevent myself from freezing, and I chose not to take that course of action because I was too lazy or had other far less important things I would rather do.

I don't see where you can say that I'm "moving a goalpost" here.

You are moving the goal post unless you consider freezing to death to be an absolute imperative, i.e. every thing else is by definition far less important.

However, in this scenario there are other options to avoid the "bad" thing from happening. For example, I could run out and buy a tank of propane gas and heat with that.

If I did that, then failing to obtain the firewood would no longer be a "sin" because I avoided the "bad" thing using another method.

The actual "sin" would be to allow a bad thing to happen when it was clearly within my power to prevent it from happening.

Again that is only if freezing to death is an absolute imperative.

So underneath it all it really has nothing to do with getting firewood. It has to do with failing to prevent something bad from happening that I could see coming and could prevent but chose not to prevent.

I concur with that, but we still haven't determined what makes something bad. Is it a personal choice or an absolute imperative. If it is a personal choice, choosing to freeze to death would not necessarily be a sin, since one could grant oneself absolution by redefining freezing to death as a good, based on circumstances.

I'm not sure what you mean by comparing this with the Donner party. Were they negligent and responsible for the bad thing that happened to them? Or were they taken by surprise by an event they simply could not overcome. That's a BIG DIFFERENCE.

It can't be considered to be a "sin" if something bad happens to you that you could not prevent and was not your fault.

Hence the moving of the goal posts. You are granting them absolution by not condemning their initial decision to cross the Sierras in winter in the first place.

But if I don't get firewood here were I live that's my fault!

At least as long as I have the ability to go get it. It's not my fault the tractor has a flat tire. But it is my fault that I chose to play the saxophone today instead of fixing the flat tire.

Again, the goal posts are moved. Freezing to death is not a sin, if the tractor has a flat tire. However, if freezing to death is bad as an absolute imperative, your failure to avoid the tractor having a flat tire would not make it not a sin. However, if a flat tire on the tractor can make freezing to death not a sin, anything can make it not a sin. You simply have to grant yourself absolution , as a have in that case.

So if we want to "nit-pick" we could say that I was "sinning" today when playing the sax instead of fixing the flat tire which is MORE IMPORTANT.

I should add that we're supposed to have some pretty warm weather here for the next week or so, so I should have time to make amends before it freezes again.

The window of opportunity for repentance and restitution is still open.

However, you presented the flat tire as something outside of your control, but then use it as an example that could be within your control , depending on circumstances. This is a movable goal post, based on circumstance.

In fact, I knew that was the case and that's why it was an easy decisions to take the rest of the day off and play the sax. If I thought it was going to freeze again real quick I would have done the hard labor.

In fact, you bring up a very good question. If you can do something that won't harm you or others can it even be called a "sin"?

However, what if you are wrong and the weather does change earlier? Is it then still not a sin because you chose not to leave your self subject to something you can not prevent.

Maybe I shouldn't feel guilty of having played the sax today instead of fixing the flat tire.

I'm not a "sinner" after all. Yippee!

Well, as long as you are permitted to determine what actions or inaction is considered in determining what is and is not beyond your control, that is true. Hence, sin to you is a movable goal post that can be absolved simply by your own rationalization.

[Divine Insight]

That is because you define freezing to death as bad. Is this an absolute or just your personal decision?

I was addressing a "secular" notion of "sin" or "bad", so this would definitely be a subjective notion.

That's how secularism works. Although many secularists do argue that when many humans reach a high quantity of consensus this can be viewed as having some "objective merit". I doubt that there are too many humans who would view freezing to death as being a "good" thing.

But yes, overall this would be a secular notion.

You are moving the goal post unless you consider freezing to death to be an absolute imperative, i.e. every thing else is by definition far less important.

Well, in a secular subjective system of "morality" there are no absolutes so talking about any imagined "Absolute Goalposts" is already to assume that such a thing should exist.

A secularist may not take that view.

Again that is only if freezing to death is an absolute imperative.

It only needs to be considered a bad thing relative to this concept. There is no need to bring any concept of "absoluteness" into the picture. That's your idea, not mine.

Where did I ever say anything about anything being absolute?

You're bringing your own criteria into this. And you would have a very difficult time defining a concept of "sin" in any absolute terms. Good luck with that. Even trying to use religious dogma doesn't appear to be clear enough since no one can even agree on what religious dogmas. Most theists use a SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION of their dogma anyway. So all religious theology is therefore nothing more than SUBJECTIVE opinions.

I don't believe there even exists such a thing as an objective religion.

I concur with that, but we still haven't determined what makes something bad. Is it a personal choice or an absolute imperative. If it is a personal choice, choosing to freeze to death would not necessarily be a sin, since one could grant oneself absolution by redefining freezing to death as a good, based on circumstances.

I totally agree. There may actually be situation where freezing to death would be the best possible outcome. In those cases freezing to death would not be "bad".

So even in systems that are imagined to be "Absolute" there are probably situations where even those absolutes fail. If everything requires context before we can decide whether it's good or bad then nothing can be "absolute" since it will always depend on the context.

Just like killing isn't even considered to be absolutely bad in most religions. Only "murder" is considered to be a sin. Killing someone is self-defense, or in a battle of war, or certainly killing someone by accident is not a "sin" even though this might still be considered to be "bad" from a human perspective. Killing the enemy in a war is not considered to be "bad" by the Biblical God to be sure since he actually commanded men to do precisely that.

Hence the moving of the goal posts. You are granting them absolution by not condemning their initial decision to cross the Sierras in winter in the first place.

If they thought they could make it then they can hardly be held guilty for having chosen to do something "bad'. Is taking a risk "bad"?

What would the Biblical God have to say about this. I'll bet the Biblical God moves his goalposts all over the place all the time. In Christianity he certainly moved his goalposts in major way between the Old Testament and the coming of Jesus. Jesus would be a major goalpost mover.

Again, the goal posts are moved. Freezing to death is not a sin, if the tractor has a flat tire. However, if freezing to death is bad as an absolute imperative, your failure to avoid the tractor having a flat tire would not make it not a sin. However, if a flat tire on the tractor can make freezing to death not a sin, anything can make it not a sin. You simply have to grant yourself absolution , as a have in that case.

Well, wouldn't this be the same way with religion?

If you are on a mission to do something "good" and you cannot complete the mission due to circumstances that are beyond your control should that be considered to be a "sinful act" on your part?

By the way, anything you have to say about this in regard to a religion would be nothing more than your subjective interpretation anyway.

So no matter how hard you try you always end up being the subjective judge of whether something should or should not be considered to be a sin. EVEN if your subjective opinion is what you THINK some God might consider it to be. You are still the one who has made a totally arbitrary subjective opinion on what you think the God would consider to be a sin based on your subjective interpretations of the religion in question.

So even if you are a hardcore fundamental theist, you're views on what constitutes a "sin" are still nothing other than your own personal subjective opinions.

You can't escape that.

Religion doesn't help to make anything concrete or absolute.

However, you presented the flat tire as something outside of your control, but then use it as an example that could be within your control , depending on circumstances. This is a movable goal post, based on circumstance.

In this case REPAIRING the flat tire is within my control. But only because I happen to have the tools to repair it. None the less there's no way I could have repaired the tire before dark. So if I had to get the firewood before dark it would have been out of my control. I certainly couldn't carry the firewood in by hand. That's just not within the realm of physical possibility.

However, what if you are wrong and the weather does change earlier? Is it then still not a sin because you chose not to leave your self subject to something you can not prevent.

Didn't I originally CONFESS that I felt guilty about it and considered to indeed be a "sin"?

But now in hindsight I'm thinking it may not have been a sin after all.

Sometimes it's not clear whether something is a sin or not at the time. And that brings up further questions that if you commit a "sin" (i.e. something that ends up creating a bad situation), but you didn't realize that you were creating that situation at the time. Then should it still be considered to have been a "sin"?

That's an interesting question. Are actions sins? Or is intent the actual sin?

I would suggest that it's the latter. Because clearly if you kill someone by accident it's not considered to be a sin, but if you kill them on purpose then it is a sin.

In this case we have the same action (i.e. killing someone), but it's the actual intent that determines whether or not that action was a "sin".

Well, as long as you are permitted to determine what actions or inaction is considered in determining what is and is not beyond your control, that is true. Hence, sin to you is a movable goal post that can be absolved simply by your own rationalization.

That's exactly correct.

But this would also hold true in religion wouldn't it?

Let's say that you were driving down the road one day in your car and were fussing with the radio trying to find a good station and not paying close attention to the road in front of you.

When you look back up at the road you see a small child right in front of you and it's too late to react. You hit the kid and kill him.

Was this an "accident"? Or are you guilty of the sin of not paying attention to driving the car and instead allowing yourself to get distracted into trying to find a good radio station?

Who decides?

In a court of law you might very well be found guilty of at least negligent manslaughter.

You'd have to wait until the day you die to find out whether a God would find you guilty of murder or not.

Is it a sin to fuss with the radio whilst driving down a road in a car?

Is it a sin to take your eyes off the road for any reason?

These are even complicated questions in theology.

And there doesn't seem to be any "absolute" answers. We can only offer our own subjective opinions of whether or not we think it should be judged to be a "sin", or just an unfortunate mistake. A freak accident. Who would have thought that a child would run out in front of your car just when you decided to fiddle with changing radio stations?

Turning to religion doesn't seem to clear things up much at all.

There's certainly nothing in the Bible about driving cars or fiddling with radios.

[Mr.Badham]

[Replying to post 3 by Divine Insight]

I don't think I explained my point very well. What I mean when I say "sinning", is an action that will cause you to be cast into hell when you die. Like disobeying the 10 commandments. If I believed that a god existed and that god would torture me for eternity because I did something he deemed "bad", I simply would not do it.

What I'm trying to get at, is that I believe anyone who commits a sin is actually a non-believer. The act of sinning is proof of non-belief.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 3 by Divine Insight]

I don't think I explained my point very well. What I mean when I say "sinning", is an action that will cause you to be cast into hell when you die. Like disobeying the 10 commandments. If I believed that a god existed and that god would torture me for eternity because I did something he deemed "bad", I simply would not do it.

What I'm trying to get at, is that I believe anyone who commits a sin is actually a non-believer. The act of sinning is proof of non-belief.

Well, this religion makes it impossible not to sin. This religion demands that you are a sinner simply because you exist. It refuses to allow that you can be sin free. In fact, it considers anyone who claims to be sin free to be a liar. They consider that to be blaspheme and a false claim that is born of pride and arrogance. In spite of the fact that the Bible actually demands otherwise.

1 John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

In fact, I used to bring this up all the time. After I had accepted Jesus into my life as my lord and savior, according to the scriptures I must necessarily be sin free at that point.

The blood of Jesus washed away any previous sin I might have had, and because the Holy Spirit of Jesus now lives in my heart I can no longer sin, as per 1 John 3:9. I think this is stated other places in scriptures too.

So at that point in time I had become sin free and can never sin again. But I don't think any Christian actually believes what these scriptures claim. If they did they would need to agree that I am completely free of sin and that it's impossible for me to ever sin again. Even if I might feel guilty about not collecting wood on the Sabbath.

I can also take the position that tam often takes on these forums. Since I have Jesus in my heart then anything I do that does not "feel" like a sin cannot be a sin, because Jesus lives in my heart. Whether I continue to believe in him or not is irrelevant. I had asked him to come into my heart, therefore he had to do it less he himself would have had to have committed the sin of being a liar.

John 14:14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

When I was a Christian I asked Jesus to come into my heart. According to John 14:14 if he failed to do it, then he was a liar.

And if he did do it then according to 1 John 3:9 I can never sin again.

[Hector Barbosa]

[Replying to post 1 by Mr.Badham]

I think as a atheist, you have misunderstood the concept of "sin" if you claim that you can not "sin". Sin is defined as "an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law." and this law applies to everyone no matter what you believe, since morality is the same for everyone, and if there is a God then his laws apply to everyone as everyone depend on God for existence.

Now you may not believe in God or in sin, but that does not mean that you are not capable of immoral acts or sinning.
In fact there is sin in your very argument. For sin is both in thought and purpose as well as action. Even pride which everyone has felt at some point or another is sin, and so is irrational fear, jealousy, to covet etc...who has not known such feelings?

You say you know what you believe is good or bad, and have no problem doing what YOU believe to be good. But how far up do you put that scale? What importance does your beliefs have as far as morality, sin or good or bad goes?
Are you capable of produce ultimate good or assure good for yourself and everyone else? I don't think so, and so you can not be the authority on what is good or bad, for you do not know everything and can not create ultimate good or prevent evil.

You write "I am under no threat of eternal damnation, cause I don't believe in it."
Not to be rude, but that is utter nonsense. Damnation has nothing to do with what you believe. The word "Damn" like a physical dam, implies limit to progress.
And if you have set your bar so low as to what is good or bad, that you find no challenge living it, then your progress IS damned right now, whether you believe in God or not.

So to answer your questions, there is no argument which can succeed defending the claim that to avoid sin is easy.

For the bar is perfection, constant progression, good without evil, something no man has achieved.....so shake yourself out of your comfy couch mate, and try to raise the bar a bit, open your eyes and set for higher targets....for if you can not think of any way that you or this world can get any better, then you don't see anything at all.