• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Sin is a figment of peoples imagination

Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Messages
271
Location
California
Basic Beliefs
Civilizationist
Sin is a figment of peoples imagination. Yet some people believe that it is real.

If these people honestly believe that what they are saying is true then don't you have to respect that?

What do you say to these delusional people?
 

fast

Contributor
Joined
Nov 10, 2004
Messages
5,293
Location
South Carolina
Basic Beliefs
Christian
Sin is a figment of peoples imagination. Yet some people believe that it is real.

If these people honestly believe that what they are saying is true then don't you have to respect that?

What do you say to these delusional people?

I think there’s a disconnect with the notion there is no sin if there is no God.

Many believers consider shacking up with someone prior to marriage as living in sin. You could make the argument that it’s not sinful, but the basis of that argument matters. If you attempt to show it’s not sinful because it’s not harmful, that’s one thing, but trying to show it’s not sinful because there is no God, it’s still the case that certain acts are sinful by virtue of certain acts said to be wrong in religious texts that are in fact wrong irregardless of whether there is a God.
 

Treedbear

Veteran Member
Joined
May 30, 2016
Messages
2,567
Location
out on a limb
Basic Beliefs
secular, humanist, agnostic on theism/atheism
Sin is a figment of peoples imagination. Yet some people believe that it is real.

If these people honestly believe that what they are saying is true then don't you have to respect that?

What do you say to these delusional people?

I think there’s a disconnect with the notion there is no sin if there is no God.

Many believers consider shacking up with someone prior to marriage as living in sin. You could make the argument that it’s not sinful, but the basis of that argument matters. If you attempt to show it’s not sinful because it’s not harmful, that’s one thing, but trying to show it’s not sinful because there is no God, it’s still the case that certain acts are sinful by virtue of certain acts said to be wrong in religious texts that are in fact wrong irregardless of whether there is a God.

Then why call those acts sins when immoral is a perfectly good word that doesn't imply there is no reason beyond it's only wrong due to God saying so? Claiming God is a way of ending further reasoning.
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Messages
271
Location
California
Basic Beliefs
Civilizationist
Then why call those acts sins when immoral is a perfectly good word that doesn't imply there is no reason beyond it's only wrong due to God saying so? Claiming God is a way of ending further reasoning.

There is no "sin". There is no "immoral". There is no "moral".

There is only civilized and uncivilized behavior.
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Messages
271
Location
California
Basic Beliefs
Civilizationist
Sin is a figment of peoples imagination. Yet some people believe that it is real.

If these people honestly believe that what they are saying is true then don't you have to respect that?

What do you say to these delusional people?

My opinion is:

Calling someone a sinner is just a roundabout way of saying that that person is inferior. Inferior to the people that arent sinners.

In a civilized society there are no inferior people.
In a civilized society there are no superior people.

The concept of "sin" is therefore not civilized and I as a civilized person do not feel under any obligation to respect the delusion that sin is a real thing.
 

Bronzeage

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Messages
7,457
Location
Deep South
Basic Beliefs
Pragmatic
Sin is a figment of peoples imagination. Yet some people believe that it is real.

If these people honestly believe that what they are saying is true then don't you have to respect that?

What do you say to these delusional people?

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

Why would sin be something imaginary? If I steal your bike, is it gone, or can you pretend it's still there and it makes no difference?
 

fast

Contributor
Joined
Nov 10, 2004
Messages
5,293
Location
South Carolina
Basic Beliefs
Christian
Sin is a figment of peoples imagination. Yet some people believe that it is real.

If these people honestly believe that what they are saying is true then don't you have to respect that?

What do you say to these delusional people?

I think there’s a disconnect with the notion there is no sin if there is no God.

Many believers consider shacking up with someone prior to marriage as living in sin. You could make the argument that it’s not sinful, but the basis of that argument matters. If you attempt to show it’s not sinful because it’s not harmful, that’s one thing, but trying to show it’s not sinful because there is no God, it’s still the case that certain acts are sinful by virtue of certain acts said to be wrong in religious texts that are in fact wrong irregardless of whether there is a God.

Then why call those acts sins when immoral is a perfectly good word that doesn't imply there is no reason beyond it's only wrong due to God saying so? Claiming God is a way of ending further reasoning.

If there is a God, and if God recognizes an act as wrong, and if God is not mistaken, then if God says an act is wrong, then it’s wrong, but don’t confuse the informative conveyance of what is said to be wrong with the basis for why it’s wrong.

An act is not wrong because God says it’s wrong, even if it’s true that an act is wrong when God says it’s wrong.

Saying that an act is wrong is informative, but saying that the Bible conveys to us that certain acts are wrong is not untrue—even if there is no God and the Bible is fallible.

Any act considered wrong by the Bible that is in fact wrong is a sin. There’s still a question (however) about whether an act (presuming possibility of biblical error) that an act that isn’t wrong is a sin when it’s still considered wrong by the Bible. It depends, but it depends on what a sin is, not whether the basis for something in the Bible is considered sin.
 

abaddon

Veteran Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2003
Messages
2,065
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
agnostic
Sin is a figment of peoples imagination. Yet some people believe that it is real.

If these people honestly believe that what they are saying is true then don't you have to respect that?

What do you say to these delusional people?


I guess start arguing about the existence of God since the word has no use outside that context.

"Sin" is a theist word for "defiance of God". https://www.gotquestions.org/definition-sin.html
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Messages
271
Location
California
Basic Beliefs
Civilizationist
Sin is a figment of peoples imagination. Yet some people believe that it is real.

If these people honestly believe that what they are saying is true then don't you have to respect that?

What do you say to these delusional people?


I guess start arguing about the existence of God since the word has no use outside that context.

"Sin" is a theist word for "defiance of God". https://www.gotquestions.org/definition-sin.html

So you don't feel obligated to respect their delusion?
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
Sin is a figment of peoples imagination. Yet some people believe that it is real.
Well, money is a figment of peoples' imagination, too. We just tend to find it a useful fiction so enough of us agree to it.
'Sin' being a crime against god, it's only useful among those who agree that there is a god.
If these people honestly believe that what they are saying is true then don't you have to respect that?
I hear people saying, some people are saying, I mean, lots of people are saying this thing. I don't know if I believe it, I don't know if I have to believe it.
But you know, people have said it, and people have insisted on saying it, insisted that it's true, it's whatever. It's their truth. That doesn't make it the big truth. People can say, people are saying that Trump is chosen by God to run this nation, people can say all kinds of shit, you know? Absolute shit, and I don't feel any great need to respect this shit just because they said it, or are saying it, and if they truly feel that what they believe is what they say, that really doesn't make it any less shit, you know?
They can believe shit and they can say shit and we have free speech so I kinda, I dunno, I gotta respect their right to say shit, but I dunno why, you know, what it would be that makes me respect the shit they're saying, just because they went to the effort to say it.
What do you say to these delusional people?
Depends on what they say and how they expect me to react. 'Shut up' can work, or 'fuck off.'
 

abaddon

Veteran Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2003
Messages
2,065
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
agnostic
Sin is a figment of peoples imagination. Yet some people believe that it is real.

If these people honestly believe that what they are saying is true then don't you have to respect that?

What do you say to these delusional people?


I guess start arguing about the existence of God since the word has no use outside that context.

"Sin" is a theist word for "defiance of God". https://www.gotquestions.org/definition-sin.html

So you don't feel obligated to respect their delusion?
No I don't respect delusions. If you're bringing up "respect" as a matter of "do you argue with them?" then that depends on my mood and the social context.
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Messages
271
Location
California
Basic Beliefs
Civilizationist
Well, money is a figment of peoples' imagination, too. We just tend to find it a useful fiction so enough of us agree to it.
'Sin' being a crime against god, it's only useful among those who agree that there is a god.
I hear people saying, some people are saying, I mean, lots of people are saying this thing. I don't know if I believe it, I don't know if I have to believe it.
But you know, people have said it, and people have insisted on saying it, insisted that it's true, it's whatever. It's their truth. That doesn't make it the big truth. People can say, people are saying that Trump is chosen by God to run this nation, people can say all kinds of shit, you know? Absolute shit, and I don't feel any great need to respect this shit just because they said it, or are saying it, and if they truly feel that what they believe is what they say, that really doesn't make it any less shit, you know?
They can believe shit and they can say shit and we have free speech so I kinda, I dunno, I gotta respect their right to say shit, but I dunno why, you know, what it would be that makes me respect the shit they're saying, just because they went to the effort to say it.
What do you say to these delusional people?
Depends on what they say and how they expect me to react. 'Shut up' can work, or 'fuck off.'

I am not sure I understand everything you just said but you seem to be implying that everything that is nonmaterial is imaginary. I dont think I agree with that. Love is a real thing. A square circle is imaginary. A circle is a real thing even though it is just an idea.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
There is no "sin". There is no "immoral". There is no "moral".

There is only civilized and uncivilized behavior.
So, how is (I'm)moral a delusion while (in)civilized is a fact?

Both are inventions of man that seek to codify behavior to maximize the acceptable population density. If we didn't have morals, no one could ever learn to play the bagpipes because the neighbors would harvest his organs for long-haggis.
Practicing your bagpipe in a crowded space would be uncivilized behavior...
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
You seem to be implying that everything that is nonmaterial is imaginary.
What would you use as a distinction between 'real nonmaterial' things and 'imaginary nonmaterial' things?
A square circle is imaginary. A circle is a real thing even though it is just an idea.
And as long as it remains 'just an idea,' it's imaginary.
We can list the rules that create and/or govern it, such as to make the imaginary circle different from an imaginary square, but it's still pretty imaginary.
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Messages
271
Location
California
Basic Beliefs
Civilizationist
There is no "sin". There is no "immoral". There is no "moral".

There is only civilized and uncivilized behavior.
So, how is (I'm)moral a delusion while (in)civilized is a fact?

Both are inventions of man that seek to codify behavior to maximize the acceptable population density. If we didn't have morals, no one could ever learn to play the bagpipes because the neighbors would harvest his organs for long-haggis.
Practicing your bagpipe in a crowded space would be uncivilized behavior...

An objective person is a person who understands that the universe does not revolve around their ego.

A civilized society is a society whose laws do not revolve around any one person or any one group of people.
The more a society treats everyone as equals the more civilized it is.

Equal rights. Equal protection. Equal pay for equal work. Equal punishment for equal crimes.

But treating everyone as equals is not the same thing as treating everyone exactly the same. If we treated everyone the way that extroverts want to be treated then people who are introverted would suffer. Treating everyone as if they were exactly the same is pseudo-civilization.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
So you don't feel obligated to respect their delusion?
No I don't respect delusions. If you're bringing up "respect" as a matter of "do you argue with them?" then that depends on my mood and the social context.
Patton Oswalt has a great bit on the big floating anus.

Imagine someone is a good person because they think that there is a big giant anus floating invisibly over his head, and they believe that if they misbehave, the anus will suck them up where the shitweasels will get him.

Okay, fine. We appreciate that you have this belief, and we appreciate that this belief makes you a better person. And, you know, we respect your right to tell anyone who will listen about the big floating invisible anus ... But, no, we do not respect the big floating invisible anus NOR do we respect the belief in the big floating invisible anus. Nope. Nuh-uh. We just think you're crazy. NICE, but crazy.

And don't get us started on the shit weasels.
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Messages
271
Location
California
Basic Beliefs
Civilizationist
You seem to be implying that everything that is nonmaterial is imaginary.
What would you use as a distinction between 'real nonmaterial' things and 'imaginary nonmaterial' things?
A square circle is imaginary. A circle is a real thing even though it is just an idea.
And as long as it remains 'just an idea,' it's imaginary.
We can list the rules that create and/or govern it, such as to make the imaginary circle different from an imaginary square, but it's still pretty imaginary.

No. As long as it remains 'just an idea' it is nonmaterial. Love is a real thing even though it is nonmaterial. Reality is why doesn't go away when you're not looking at it . Love doesn't go away when you're not looking at it
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Messages
271
Location
California
Basic Beliefs
Civilizationist
Sin is a form of black and white all or nothing thinking. Sin is thought of as all-bad. Infinitely bad. In reality nothing is infinitely bad.

Sin is a square circle. It is purely imaginary. It cannot exist. It is irrational and self contradictory.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
An objective person is a person who understands that the universe does not revolve around their ego.
Okay. Unless, of course, the person is a brain in a jar, then this objective person is actually delusional...
A civilized society is a society whose laws do not revolve around any one person or any one group of people.
How are you defining 'civilized' in this instance? And how are you defining 'group?'
The more a society treats everyone as equals the more civilized it is.
This really requires a definition of 'civilized.'
But treating everyone as equals is not the same thing as treating everyone exactly the same. If we treated everyone the way that extroverts want to be treated then people who are introverted would suffer. Treating everyone as if they were exactly the same is pseudo-civilization.

Okay, now how about a completely different question: So, how is (im)moral a delusion while (un)civilized is a fact?
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
What would you use as a distinction between 'real nonmaterial' things and 'imaginary nonmaterial' things? And as long as it remains 'just an idea,' it's imaginary.
We can list the rules that create and/or govern it, such as to make the imaginary circle different from an imaginary square, but it's still pretty imaginary.

No. As long as it remains 'just an idea' it is nonmaterial. Love is a real thing even though it is nonmaterial.
Chemical changes in the brain are real. Love is an imaginary concept associated with those changes and the feelings they create.
Reality is why doesn't go away when you're not looking at it . Love doesn't go away when you're not looking at it
So, you've never been infatuated, and had people tell you 'it's not real.'
And never grown out of that infatuation...

Reality is what's there no matter who is looking at it.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Messages
271
Location
California
Basic Beliefs
Civilizationist
Chemical changes in the brain are real. Love is an imaginary concept associated with those changes and the feelings they create.
Reality is why doesn't go away when you're not looking at it . Love doesn't go away when you're not looking at it
So, you've never been infatuated, and had people tell you 'it's not real.'
And never grown out of that infatuation...

Reality is what's there no matter who is looking at it.

So you make no distinction between a circle (which is real) and a square circle (which is imaginary)?

I think I see now whats wrong with this world
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
So you make no distinction between a circle (which is real) and a square circle (which is imaginary)?
I never said that.
There are certainly distinctions between imaginary things that can and cannot be easily represented in a physical form.
But 'real/imaginary' is not THE distinction I would make.
I think I see now whats wrong with this world
What's.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
Everything else follows from the definition that I gave
"consistent with' is not the same as 'defined by.'

I didn't say it was consistent with.
No, you did not say that.
But the best you have offered is just a consistent, if vague, idea. You haven't offered A DEFINITION OF CIVILIZED.
You are saying that I am saying consistent with. I am saying it is defined by
And you're wrong.
 

abaddon

Veteran Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2003
Messages
2,065
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
agnostic
So you don't feel obligated to respect their delusion?
No I don't respect delusions. If you're bringing up "respect" as a matter of "do you argue with them?" then that depends on my mood and the social context.
Patton Oswalt has a great bit on the big floating anus.

Imagine someone is a good person because they think that there is a big giant anus floating invisibly over his head, and they believe that if they misbehave, the anus will suck them up where the shitweasels will get him.

Okay, fine. We appreciate that you have this belief, and we appreciate that this belief makes you a better person. And, you know, we respect your right to tell anyone who will listen about the big floating invisible anus ... But, no, we do not respect the big floating invisible anus NOR do we respect the belief in the big floating invisible anus. Nope. Nuh-uh. We just think you're crazy. NICE, but crazy.

And don't get us started on the shit weasels.
Then I'd argue the good person is probably good most of the time in spite of the anus. For such a person, it's that big floating anus that is what... well, 'messes up' their life.

Imagination can be such a shitty thing to people. And belief in needless imaginations is always a problem. When that's the case there's no good reason to "respect" it. That'd be another reason to argue about the anus. Because it's a problem for the believer himself.

"Sin". I've seen imaginations about this idea hurt people's minds and it's hard to "respect" that.
 

Treedbear

Veteran Member
Joined
May 30, 2016
Messages
2,567
Location
out on a limb
Basic Beliefs
secular, humanist, agnostic on theism/atheism
Then why call those acts sins when immoral is a perfectly good word that doesn't imply there is no reason beyond it's only wrong due to God saying so? Claiming God is a way of ending further reasoning.

There is no "sin". There is no "immoral". There is no "moral".

There is only civilized and uncivilized behavior.

Morality is all about how to achieve a civilized society.
civilized: Showing evidence of moral and intellectual advancement; humane, reasonable, ethical.
If you like, it's the study of how that is achieved rather than an exact set of rules as you have for sin.
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Messages
271
Location
California
Basic Beliefs
Civilizationist
Morality is all about how to achieve a civilized society.
civilized: Showing evidence of moral and intellectual advancement; humane, reasonable, ethical.
If you like, it's the study of how that is achieved rather than an exact set of rules as you have for sin.

An objective person is a person who understands that the universe does not revolve around their ego.

A civilized society is a society whose laws do not revolve around any one person or any one group of people.
The more a society treats everyone as equals the more civilized it is.

Equal rights. Equal protection. Equal pay for equal work. Equal punishment for equal crimes.

But treating everyone as equals is not the same thing as treating everyone exactly the same. If we treated everyone the way that extroverts want to be treated then people who are introverted would suffer. Treating everyone as if they were exactly the same is pseudo-civilization.
 

Treedbear

Veteran Member
Joined
May 30, 2016
Messages
2,567
Location
out on a limb
Basic Beliefs
secular, humanist, agnostic on theism/atheism
Then why call those acts sins when immoral is a perfectly good word that doesn't imply there is no reason beyond it's only wrong due to God saying so? Claiming God is a way of ending further reasoning.

If there is a God, and if God recognizes an act as wrong, and if God is not mistaken, then if God says an act is wrong, then it’s wrong, but don’t confuse the informative conveyance of what is said to be wrong with the basis for why it’s wrong.

An act is not wrong because God says it’s wrong, even if it’s true that an act is wrong when God says it’s wrong.

Saying that an act is wrong is informative, but saying that the Bible conveys to us that certain acts are wrong is not untrue—even if there is no God and the Bible is fallible.

Any act considered wrong by the Bible that is in fact wrong is a sin. There’s still a question (however) about whether an act (presuming possibility of biblical error) that an act that isn’t wrong is a sin when it’s still considered wrong by the Bible. It depends, but it depends on what a sin is, not whether the basis for something in the Bible is considered sin.

You have a very liberal view of the Bible definition of sin. This is what I always heard when I was a Roman Catholic (I'll borrow from abaddon's link):
Question: "What is the definition of sin?"

Answer: Sin is described in the Bible as transgression of the law of God (1 John 3:4) and rebellion against God (Deuteronomy 9:7; Joshua 1:18).
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Messages
271
Location
California
Basic Beliefs
Civilizationist
Saying that "2+2=5 is an error" is a fact. It can be proven using logic and cause and effect. The error is real.

Saying that mixing linen and wool is a sin is irrational. It doesnt follow from logic or cause and effect. The 'sin' is imaginary

Indeed saying that anything is all-bad (infinitely bad) is illogical and impossible​

Saying that killing people is uncivilized is a fact. It can be established using logic and cause and effect. People dont want to die. Given a civilized society where everyone is equal and everyone has a say in what things are legal and what things are illegal they will inevitably choose to make muder illegal.
 

Treedbear

Veteran Member
Joined
May 30, 2016
Messages
2,567
Location
out on a limb
Basic Beliefs
secular, humanist, agnostic on theism/atheism
Morality is all about how to achieve a civilized society.
civilized: Showing evidence of moral and intellectual advancement; humane, reasonable, ethical.
If you like, it's the study of how that is achieved rather than an exact set of rules as you have for sin.

An objective person is a person who understands that the universe does not revolve around their ego.

A civilized society is a society whose laws do not revolve around any one person or any one group of people.
The more a society treats everyone as equals the more civilized it is.

Equal rights. Equal protection. Equal pay for equal work. Equal punishment for equal crimes.

But treating everyone as equals is not the same thing as treating everyone exactly the same. If we treated everyone the way that extroverts want to be treated then people who are introverted would suffer. Treating everyone as if they were exactly the same is pseudo-civilization.

Sorry, but if that was a response you've lost me. None of what you said contradicts the need for moral principles in a civilized society.
 

fast

Contributor
Joined
Nov 10, 2004
Messages
5,293
Location
South Carolina
Basic Beliefs
Christian
You have a very liberal view of the Bible definition of sin. This is what I always heard when I was a Roman Catholic (I'll borrow from abaddon's link):
Question: "What is the definition of sin?"

Answer: Sin is described in the Bible as transgression of the law of God (1 John 3:4) and rebellion against God (Deuteronomy 9:7; Joshua 1:18).

What I’m saying is not contrary to the Bible—or at least my intent is to keep what I’m saying from being contrary to it.

First, I have no qualms whatsoever with Bible verses, and it would be a gross misunderstanding to think i’m espousing disagreement with them.

Second, I hold the position that it’s words, not the referent to words, that are defined. Sin is the referent to the word, “sin,” and it’s the word, “sin” that is defined—not sin.

Third, I’m actually being charitable and accept that people sometimes mistakenly make explicit what it is that is defined; that’s why I graciously accept that the intended question is not about the definition of sin but rather the definition of the word, “sin.”

Four, while I have no qualms accepting as true what the Bible verses say, they do not answer the question posed. The Bible verses do a brilliant job in expounding upon what sin is, but my issue is that they are not definitions for the word—nor is it readily discernible that was the intention of them.

Five, there is a subtle ambiguity with the word, “is” that we should not let escape us, as it makes a mighty substantive difference. Consider the three is’s in philosophy. One is the “is of identity.” If I say that “a bachelor is an unmarried male,” that is the “is of identity.” That would be more akin to a definition.

If I say that “my ladder is tall,” that is another use (a different use and thus a different meaning) of “is” that is not akin to a definition. The Bible quotes are saying something many may find valuable, but they are not definitions just because the word “is” is used.

Six, note this definition that I just googled: an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.

If an act is immoral AND CONSIDERED (oh, by anyone) to be a transgression against divine law, then the act is not only immoral but a sin as well. Notice how no God is required for it to be considered, considered to be ... a transgression ... .

I don’t particularly care for that particular definition, as it lacks something, uh (not sure how to word this), stenographic observed subtelties.
 

Treedbear

Veteran Member
Joined
May 30, 2016
Messages
2,567
Location
out on a limb
Basic Beliefs
secular, humanist, agnostic on theism/atheism
You have a very liberal view of the Bible definition of sin. This is what I always heard when I was a Roman Catholic (I'll borrow from abaddon's link):
Question: "What is the definition of sin?"

Answer: Sin is described in the Bible as transgression of the law of God (1 John 3:4) and rebellion against God (Deuteronomy 9:7; Joshua 1:18).

What I’m saying is not contrary to the Bible—or at least my intent is to keep what I’m saying from being contrary to it.

First, I have no qualms whatsoever with Bible verses, and it would be a gross misunderstanding to think i’m espousing disagreement with them.

Second, I hold the position that it’s words, not the referent to words, that are defined. Sin is the referent to the word, “sin,” and it’s the word, “sin” that is defined—not sin.

Third, I’m actually being charitable and accept that people sometimes mistakenly make explicit what it is that is defined; that’s why I graciously accept that the intended question is not about the definition of sin but rather the definition of the word, “sin.”

Four, while I have no qualms accepting as true what the Bible verses say, they do not answer the question posed. The Bible verses do a brilliant job in expounding upon what sin is, but my issue is that they are not definitions for the word—nor is it readily discernible that was the intention of them.

Five, there is a subtle ambiguity with the word, “is” that we should not let escape us, as it makes a mighty substantive difference. Consider the three is’s in philosophy. One is the “is of identity.” If I say that “a bachelor is an unmarried male,” that is the “is of identity.” That would be more akin to a definition.

If I say that “my ladder is tall,” that is another use (a different use and thus a different meaning) of “is” that is not akin to a definition. The Bible quotes are saying something many may find valuable, but they are not definitions just because the word “is” is used.

Six, note this definition that I just googled: an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.

If an act is immoral AND CONSIDERED (oh, by anyone) to be a transgression against divine law, then the act is not only immoral but a sin as well. Notice how no God is required for it to be considered, considered to be ... a transgression ... .

I don’t particularly care for that particular definition, as it lacks something, uh (not sure how to word this), stenographic observed subtelties.

Here's what most Christians are taught. Sinners are punished by God. Not now when it might make a difference, but after they die when it's too late to change. Sinning is transgressing God's laws, period. It's not God making helpful suggestions. They're called commandments for a reason. And it's unlikely that "what the definition of 'is' is" will work as a defense. Society's laws address wrongs against mankind where punishment is served as a corrective action rather than as retribution.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
35,725
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Any mathematician can tell you sin isn't imaginary. Nor is cos or tan, for that matter.
 

Tigers!

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
2,825
Location
On the wing waiting for a kick.
Basic Beliefs
Bible believing revelational redemptionist (Baptist)
There is no "sin". There is no "immoral". There is no "moral".

There is only civilized and uncivilized behavior.
So, how is (I'm)moral a delusion while (in)civilized is a fact?

Both are inventions of man that seek to codify behavior to maximize the acceptable population density. If we didn't have morals, no one could ever learn to play the bagpipes because the neighbors would harvest his organs for long-haggis.
Practicing your bagpipe in a crowded space would be uncivilized behavior...

An objective person is a person who understands that the universe does not revolve around their ego.

A civilized society is a society whose laws do not revolve around any one person or any one group of people.
The more a society treats everyone as equals the more civilized it is.

Equal rights. Equal protection. Equal pay for equal work. Equal punishment for equal crimes sins.

But treating everyone as equals is not the same thing as treating everyone exactly the same. If we treated everyone the way that extroverts want to be treated then people who are introverted would suffer. Treating everyone as if they were exactly the same is pseudo-civilization.

FIFY
 

ronburgundy

Contributor
Joined
Dec 6, 2014
Messages
5,757
Location
Whale's Vagina
Basic Beliefs
Atheist/Scientist
Then why call those acts sins when immoral is a perfectly good word that doesn't imply there is no reason beyond it's only wrong due to God saying so? Claiming God is a way of ending further reasoning.

There is no "sin". There is no "immoral". There is no "moral".

There is only civilized and uncivilized behavior.

There is no sin, b/c that implies there is a divine law that has been contradicted. Nothing can be a sin, if there is no divine being who created a divine law. However, immorality exists in the same exact way that any idea, or pain and pleasure exist, as psychological states created by object or event. The pain directly caused to people by various acts is very much real, there are physical brain states that can be observed which correspond to that pain. People's desire not to feel such pain is equally real, as are people's desire to have rules that minimize such pain and allow for civilization to exist, which requires cooperation and trust than would only exist under a system of ethics and moral rules.

Granted moral claims do not refer to an object outside the human mind in the way that the idea of a chair does. That is why claims of what is moral are inherently opinions and cannot be either objective true or false, b/c the concept of such truth only applies to whether the idea of a thing accurately reflect some actual thing external to the idea. But opinions are states of mind, thus they certainly are real things that exist, even if they don't contain the property of being true or false ideas.

So, it is a delusion to believe that "X is immoral" in any sense other than "X causes harm and I don't like that." And no, we should not respect people's delusions. But it is not a delusion to not to like things that cause harm, and since civilization cannot exist unless we respect each others desires not to be harmed (and you seem to care about "civilization"), then we should respect morals/rules that are based upon not causing unwarranted harm to each other.
 
Top Bottom