The concept of sin

I participate in a big creation vs evolution, theist vs atheist discussion on a dutch forum, and it forces me to think and sometimes I think I get some interesting insights.

So I had just figured out that the concept of "sin" and that man is "imperfect" is totally not an argument against atheists, because "imperfection" implies a purpose. It is impossible for a human being to be "perfect".
It also follows that getting rid of sin is impossible, because if you don't have sin anymore you aren't human anymore.

Any thoughts?

Sin is a concept that only exists according to a theistic view of life. The concept of sin makes no sense if one looks at it from an atheistic viewpoint. We don't get our ethical codes from religious authorities that make proclamations about what is moral or not. 

You're right, to say that man is "imperfect" makes no sense. What is perfect? Again, this only comes from a theistic viewpoint. Is a cat perfect or imperfect? What about a cow, a bird? We aren't the culmination of evolution which has created some sort of animal that can be "perfect". 

There is no "sin" to get rid of. Again, that's just a theistic construct.

I think sin is fun.

it seemed the catholic church thought everything fun was a sin.    good way to get the punters in the door to repent and empty their pockets into the collection bowls!  greedy christians LOL!

I'm not sure I understood you correctly here. I assume you are saying that for something to be imperfect, it has to be imperfect with relation to some function, so that only things with some inteded purpose can be reasonably said to be imperfect? And that since atheists do not ascribe to the notion of an externally determined, over-reaching purpose to life, or our existence, the religious notion of imperfection does not aply.

If this is what you are arguing, I'd point out that there can be purpose in a more mundane sense, in that the purpose of the knee joint is to allow for a certain range of movement, and support mobility. We can then, purely on the basis of how well a particular knee joint performs this function, judge it's degree of perfection/imperfection.

But it is indeed impossible to judge the degree of perfection of a thing, or a whole human being, or the human species, unless you reveal what function you are using as a criteria.

Since "sin" is defined in terms of the criteria of "being close to god" and "followin god's commandments", then obviously someone who does not believe in gods also does not ascribe to the notion of sin as anything more than a cultural, religious construct without any objective reality.

Evolution has instilled in us a purpose - to produce ofspring and grandofspring, and that seems to me to be the only externally imposed purpose on us; in one sense, one could judge the perfection of humans by their ability to replicate and spread their genes. We aren't doing too badly, but in this sense, cockroaches and beetles, plankton and many other organisms outshine us quite clearly.

We humans can set our own purposes and goals for ourselves, and judge our degree of perfection with regard to our success in achieving those goals, but this doesn't come anywhere near the religious concept of sin either.

There ARE good arguments for hard-wired moral-intutitions in us though, put there by our evolutionary history as a social species, so perhaps there is a way to argue for a kind of a degree of moral, or social perfection - as in how well we function in a society, and how well we achieve status within that society, but whether or not we take that measure of "perfection" as a personal value worth pursuing is entirely up to us.

I think the word sin was invented for people that need to be told killing is bad... on the other hands there are some sins that are just plain old silly.... But wait, if killing is a sin, and the god of the old testamente killed all kinds of people.... typical do as i say not as i do...

In my mind, "sin" is the word religions have come up with for "wrong". I do believe -- all religions and gods aside -- that certain acts are wrong, though I'd be hard pressed to come up with any specific list. It seems very wrong to me to waste resources, for example -- even if we have the money to do so. I think it is wrong to intentionally hurt another sentient being. Most of us intuitively feel what is the right thing to do, even if we might debate about it theoretically.

If you want to know what the Bible says about sin, email me privately, and we'll talk.  If you want to compare sin with the way that you think, you can do that, but it doesn't make much sense...the Bible is what God says about the way we view life.  Now, if you immediately cut off anything and say, "I don't believe in God", that is your choice.  But the Bible clearly teaches us about sin, and what affect it has on our lives, and how we can overcome it.

I'm just curious, very, very curious: why are you in this group? Did you join thinking you'd convert us, teach us what is "right"? That's all very good and noble, but I have a feeling you won't get many disciples from this group.

Sign me Proud to be Godless

No, I didn't join this group, but it is a public group, and I did give a respectable alternative viewpoint.  I didn't join the group, because obviously, I am a Christian.  But I find it intriguing that a person who doesn't believe in God would even debate the concept of sin, considering it is a concept from God, not from man.  But if you want to debate it with human rational, that is fine.  I wanted to give someone the opportunity who was interested to hear what the Bible had to say about sin to write me.  If you wish to be godless, that is your choice.  But I don't see any strong guidelines then to say what is sin and what is not sin, since you say you don't believe in God.  There would be nothing higher to tell you what is "right" and what is "wrong". 

The whole reason I even looked at this group is that you guys are playing the Christian Chess Players in a team match, and I wanted to see what you were about, above and beyond your profession of unbelief.  And I found this forum.  So far, no one has written me personally...that is okay too.  I simply offered it for anyone who wanted to know what the Bible has to say. 

Well, since "sin" is a bible-invented concept, it is logical that the bible also happily supplies instructions in how to overcome it. So that whoever is impressed by the talk about sin will without much ado take the biblical teachings on sin for granted.

Thanks, I hadn't viewed it from that perspective yet. Yet another self-reinforcing mechanism discovered in "religion".

Right...because as a Christian, you trust the word of God.  As an atheist, you have nothing to lean on.  As a matter of fact, everything is futile, without God, because no matter what you think, it doesn't matter.  There is no clear-cut right or wrong, because you have nothing to base your thoughts on, and you have no reason to live.  In Christianity, we are told what is right and wrong...there are clear-cut borders on this...in Galatians 5, Paul lists some of the sins that humans deal with -

 ¹⁹Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

 ²⁰Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

 ²¹Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

But if you don't believe in God, you have no way to truly justify anything that you argue, because you have no definite source of reasoning.  Everything is philosophical, and revolves around, like a wheel, with no beginning nor end.  No solutions, no anything. 

So it intrigues me that you even asked about the concept of sin, and still don't believe in God...sin is essentially missing the mark - where a human falls short of the glory of God.  But if you don't believe in God, you have nothing to reason with, except yourself, and maybe other humans.  But even the most close-to-perfect person, according to atheistic doctrine, would not necessarily be a person to aspire to be like.  Because there is no sense of, "Hey, this is wrong because...". 

There is no such thing as atheistic doctrine. I'm having dinner now and then I'm going to chess club, I will come back later to the rest of your post. It contains quite alot of (wrong) stereotypes of atheists. I hope the others won't rip it apart too much for me not to have fun anymore..

There is athiestic doctrine.  I had quite a talk in the past with a member of this site about Ayn Rand.  She is one of many philosophers who debates morality, but doesn't believe in God.  So to attend to her theories would be a kind of doctrine.  But take it as you will.

I never came here with a concept of atheists like you say I have.  I only am focusing on the concept of sin, the topic.  My question (since I am being misinterpreted) is that since you don't believe in God, what do you base your concept of sin upon? 

My point is, I believe in God - so therefore, I believe in sin.  You don't believe in God - do you believe in sin?  You asked about the concept of sin, and I gave my view on it.  Nothing more than that.  No stereotypes.  I am sorry if you feel I stereotyped you, but the focus of this conversation was not at all about stereotypes...it is about sin, and I asked you how you could talk about sin, without believing in God?  I don't see how you can, without using an external device.  Sin is, according to the Word of God, when we fall short of the glory of God, through things in our lives that do not match up with Him. 

I thought this definition might put a bit of spice on atheistic doctrine, straight from www.dictionary.com.

A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.

So we can see that by gathering principles together, whether atheistic or Christian, a doctrine, a code of ethics, can be formed.

BirdBrain,

I'll step in here. I wouldn't dream of saying anything for Alphastar18, but I think I can address at least a few of the stereotypes you have of atheists that he's probably noticing as well.

" If you wish to be godless, that is your choice."

I don't choose not to be godless any more than to choose to believe your parents are indeed your parents. You look at the evidence and you come to a conclusion. 

"As an atheist, you have nothing to lean on.  As a matter of fact, everything is futile, without God, because no matter what you think, it doesn't matter.  There is no clear-cut right or wrong, because you have nothing to base your thoughts on, and you have no reason to live."

So without your belief in god, you would find no reason to live? You wouldn't find it rewarding to help the poor or comfort the lonely or any other "good" deed without a god being involved? You would find no solace or joy in raising your children with your spouse. The touch of another human being wouldn't mean anything. You would find no joy in listening to Mozart, running as fast as you can until your breathless, gazing up at the amazing night sky over our heads. All of the wonder of life wouldn't be enough for you? The only reason you don't go out and rape and kill right now is because there might be a sky-daddy watching you? 

I'd like to believe this isn't true. Please tell me you don't need a "holy" book written by a "god" to tell you that murdering and raping people wantonly is wrong. Tell me you aren't a psychopath that is only held in check by your belief in the fear of godly retribution and the promise of eternal reward. 

As far as "right and wrong" there are many places we get our morals from besides a god. In fact, throughout history, religions have modified their teaching to fit with the progress of human morality. "Slavery is no longer acceptable in society? OK, We'll no longer back that like we used to." If you want to know more about where morality actually comes from and how the moral zeitgeist has changed over the years (often in spite of religion, not because of it), let me know. I'd be happy to talk to you about that.

If what you claim is true, atheists should be some of the most unhappy people in the world, tending to be anti-social, self-centered and hopeless. This is demonstrably not true. If you look at societies that are strongly secular with the largest percentages of the population being comprised of atheists, like Sweden, Denmark, Japan, Norway, Finland, France, etc. you see that when polled, their overall happiness far outranks the most religious countries, like the United States. Along with this, they tend to be more willing to cooperate together for common causes and have lower tendencies to be war-like and have less problems with racism.

cont.

Major crime and problems with STD's, teenage pregnancies, among other problems is higher in the traditionally "red" religious states than in states and cities that tend to have higher amounts of people who aren't religious. http://forums.projectcovo.com/showthread.php?t=979396

You mention Ayn Rand. Yes, she was an atheist. Yes she believed in certain things. So what? I think she's wrong about all sorts of things. Just not about there being a god or not. Atheists don't all have the same code of ethics, doctrines, etc. Nor do we get our ethics, political bents and other important life-defining beliefs from the same places. We don't have churches or meeting places. We don't have saints or sacred books or have anything at all we consider sacred for that matter, we don't have consensus on anything except that there isn't a god.

Yours is one of the arguments that theists make constantly, to try lump atheists into the same boat as them. This statement that there are doctrines and fundamentalists among atheists is a bunch of hogwash. I attribute it to the fact that most theists can barely even comprehend what it would like to be an atheist. "Why don't you just despair and kill yourself?" "What stops you from killing someone?" and many other questions I hear from theists tell me that they haven't actually thought about what a life not believing in god would be like. They are too indoctrinated to have even contemplated it.

I applaud you for coming here and being civil and for your questions. I hope we can clear some things up for you. If however, you start to try to convert people, I'm going to dredge up some of the terms I learned in the Marines to tell you how I feel about that. I respect you and have no desire to destroy your faith, however misguided I think it is ;). I'm glad that to this point you are being similarly respectful.

Yes Dahan, I never intended to use anything as a stereotype.  As a matter of fact, you will see that I have not posted in any other forums on the group...but seeing "the concept of sin" intrigued me.

And as far as Rand goes, it would be similar to different denominations of Christians...there are Baptists, Lutherans, etc. (lots of different denominations - we both know that) and a lot of them have different ideas about what Christianity is about.  So it goes with atheism and agnosticism - I am aware of that.  And I appreciate you speaking with me in friendly terms - despite the difference of core beliefs, I think we should be able to talk without fighting - so I appreciate that deeply.

Of course, you never could destroy my faith :-) - but I am not here to discuss that. 

For me to say that since you are an atheist, that you wouldn't get joy out of life itself would be ridiculous...but to believe that this is it...that would be disheartening to me...and I don't intend to waver off of the subject, because of offense that would be taken by bringing my personal beliefs into this forum. 

I simply want, for the sake of the conversation, to cover the concept of sin...if you want to get into a deeper conversation, I will gladly oblige, but I want to be respectful in this forum...

My point was that people, regardless of beliefs, have a code of ethics - regardless of what kind of code it is.  Even nihilists have a code - nothing matters.  But sin - that is a term from Christianity, and it refers to missing the mark, which speaks of how we don't match up step for step with God - and there is much to that conversation.

And as far as being satisfied with just life...all I can say is, and I will make it short and sweet, unless you want me to speak further on it - once you have tasted of God, you aren't truly happy with only what the world offers, because it can never compare with what lies ahead for me when I leave here.  And yes, there is great joy in helping others - I would much rather help others than help myself.  And as far as needing a Bible, the Bible itself says that God writes the law in the hearts - Hebrews 8:10 -

¹⁰For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

I have heard people argue that the Ten Commandments are just common sense - that they are a simple part of our thinking...and I agree, they are common sense...however, my outlook on why they are common sense is different than his.

There is a promise of reward, but much more than this...is the love for God, and the love that I feel, that gives me the desire to do good for people. 

Time is short, and I have to finish some work before the end of the day.  Monday I will be back, and I look forward to speaking more with you, Dahan, and others.  Thanks for not trying to "tear things to shreds".  That would not have been nice... :-)  I will re-read your thread again on Monday, because I want to soak up some of your great comments about loving life.

"My point was that people, regardless of beliefs, have a code of ethics - regardless of what kind of code it is.  Even nihilists have a code - nothing matters.  But sin - that is a term from Christianity, and it refers to missing the mark, which speaks of how we don't match up step for step with God - and there is much to that conversation."

I agree with that. That's why I don't use the term sin. It means nothing to me.

However, I don't agree with "different denominations" theory you have concerning atheists. Again, no holy books, no disciples, no worship, no belief in infallibility... nothing. Sure, some atheists agree with her on a lot of things, but that's hardly the same as having it be a denomination! If I agree with the Baseball philosophy of Harmon Killebrew and that there are parts of it you can adapt to your life, but that doesn't mean baseball is a religion and that Killebrew has his own denomination. 

You miss a key difference between atheism and Christianity when you state that Christians "have different ideas about what Christianity is about" Those different ideas or positive proclamations. There's nothing for atheism to "be about". It's simply a disbelief in god. It's not a positive position or statement that is made, such as a Christian would make. You can't build a set of doctrines or an ideology around the idea that something like a god doesn't exist. No more so than you could have different competing doctrines for people who don't believe in Faeries. 

I've read the Bible more than once. I've got over 14 years of Bible study under my belt, and I know that religion gives some a sense of peace for many.

You can state that "once you have tasted of God, you aren't truly happy with only what the world offers, because it can never compare with what lies ahead for me when I leave here" but I've heard those words from enough addicts in my life to know that those words don't mean much. I'd much rather have the cold breath of fresh air that is a belief in only the rational and our reality no matter how harsh it may seem at times, than the warm mellow glow of religion that leaves some drunk and happy, but forever dulled.

That's everyone's choice though. Thanks again and have a good weekend.

PS

You state that:

"Of course, you never could destroy my faith :-)"

This is the fundamental difference between us. There is nothing that could ever move you from your position and your beliefs. There is no new evidence, nothing that you could learn that would stop you from believing what you believe now. To an atheist/skeptic/rationalist like myself, that's very sad.

I could be dissuaded from my beliefs, I only require proof. I know what it would take to change my mind. I'm willing to re-evaluate my positions on topics such as this. You aren't. Again, I find that to be really very sad.