I sin therefore I am?

[Hereashortwhileonly]

Is recognition of sin the essential dividing line between believers and non-believers?

Every person - except for a particular class of psychopath, perhaps - will have some idea of right and wrong. Therefore, this awareness is fundamental to the human being.

The awareness of God by contrast is not *necessarily* fundamental - in the sense that sometimes people will have such awareness, and sometimes not.

Recognition of sin is, implicitly, a recognition of God. Therefore, someone who recognises the reality of sin, is recognising God. He is a believer.

Someone who doesn't recognise sin, doesn't recognise God. He is a disbeliever.

Why is this important?

Because knowing what sin is doesn't require a leap of faith or seeking to the know the unseen. We all have this sense of right and wrong. Is that sense connected to something actual or not - isn't this the most essential question?

 

[Altfish]

Is recognition of sin the essential dividing line between believers and non-believers?

Every person - except for a particular class of psychopath, perhaps - will have some idea of right and wrong. Therefore, this awareness is fundamental to the human being.

The awareness of God by contrast is not *necessarily* fundamental - in the sense that sometimes people will have such awareness, and sometimes not.

Recognition of sin is, implicitly, a recognition of God. Therefore, someone who recognises the reality of sin, is recognising God. He is a believer.

Someone who doesn't recognise sin, doesn't recognise God. He is a disbeliever.

Why is this important?

Because knowing what sin is doesn't require a leap of faith or seeking to the know the unseen. We all have this sense of right and wrong. Is that sense connected to something actual or not - isn't this the most essential question?

Interesting first post


Unfortunately it fails on the first line.
'Sin' is not the essential dividing line between believers and non-believers.
The difference is that one side believe in god(s) and the others don't

 

[Hereashortwhileonly]

Interesting first post


Unfortunately it fails on the first line.
'Sin' is not the essential dividing line between believers and non-believers.
The difference is that one side believe in god(s) and the others don't

What is meant is that belief in God follows from recognising the reality of sin. Recognising the reality of sin, is a recognition that right and wrong has actual foundation - is a reality, not just an imagined thing. (Eg. as evolutionary explanations would offer.)

We all recognise right and wrong - no society will go without it. No rational person will go without it.

Therefore, this is where the discussion should begin, it is posited.

To begin from, Do you believe in God? Is an easy get-out for the disbeliever, because it doesn't cost him anything to say no.

And that is dishonest, because, on a rational basis, it costs him everything.

 

[Altfish]

What is meant is that belief in God follows from recognising the reality of sin. Recognising the reality of sin, is a recognition that right and wrong has actual foundation - is a reality, not just an imagined thing. (Eg. as evolutionary explanations would offer.)

We all recognise right and wrong - no society will go without it. No rational person will go without it.

Therefore, this is where the discussion should begin, it is posited.

To begin from, Do you believe in God? Is an easy get-out for the disbeliever, because it doesn't cost him anything to say no.

And that is dishonest, because, on a rational basis, it costs him everything.

Baloney.

Disbelief in god costs me nothing and I gain much

 

[Hereashortwhileonly]

Baloney.

Disbelief in god costs me nothing and I gain much

Baloney.

Disbelief in god costs me nothing and I gain much

You haven't engaged with the argument, my invisible interlocutor, by which I take it rational engagement is not your bag.

But thank you for the reply nonetheless.

 

[ChristineM]

Is recognition of sin the essential dividing line between believers and non-believers?

Every person - except for a particular class of psychopath, perhaps - will have some idea of right and wrong. Therefore, this awareness is fundamental to the human being.

The awareness of God by contrast is not *necessarily* fundamental - in the sense that sometimes people will have such awareness, and sometimes not.

Recognition of sin is, implicitly, a recognition of God. Therefore, someone who recognises the reality of sin, is recognising God. He is a believer.

Someone who doesn't recognise sin, doesn't recognise God. He is a disbeliever.

Why is this important?

Because knowing what sin is doesn't require a leap of faith or seeking to the know the unseen. We all have this sense of right and wrong. Is that sense connected to something actual or not - isn't this the most essential question?

Sin is a religious concept, not relevant to the non religious or even to some religions.

And welcome to RF.

 

[Hereashortwhileonly]

Sin is a religious concept, not relevant to the non religious or even to some religions.

And welcome to RF.

Thank you, ChristineM.

So do you think right or wrong has any foundation? If so, what is it?

 

[ChristineM]

Thank you, ChristineM.

So do you think right or wrong has any foundation? If so, what is it?

You want to talk morality, fair enough.

I see morality as a human trait, and some other animals, mostly but not exclusively mammals. The morality of human beings allows them to function as a group and hence civilisation developed. From that civilisation greed and power control allowed religion to develop. Those who controlled religion took human morality and bastardised it to exclude any person who was not of their particular faith. And then the story of hatred and wars of religion really get going.

Personally I'll take human morality, human understand of right and wrong any day. Religious morality is just too damn selective, judgemental and hate ridden.

 

[SigurdReginson]

Seems to me that sin isn't synonymous with things that are universally accepted as wrong.

In some religions, eating certain foods, such as beef or shellfish, is a sin... People wouldn't necessarily conclude these things were wrong without dogmatic influence directing that bias. Things such as murder don't require scripture or dogma for folks to conclude it's wrong, though.

 

[McBell]

Is recognition of sin the essential dividing line between believers and non-believers?

Every person - except for a particular class of psychopath, perhaps - will have some idea of right and wrong. Therefore, this awareness is fundamental to the human being.

The awareness of God by contrast is not *necessarily* fundamental - in the sense that sometimes people will have such awareness, and sometimes not.

Recognition of sin is, implicitly, a recognition of God. Therefore, someone who recognises the reality of sin, is recognising God. He is a believer.

Someone who doesn't recognise sin, doesn't recognise God. He is a disbeliever.

Why is this important?

Because knowing what sin is doesn't require a leap of faith or seeking to the know the unseen. We all have this sense of right and wrong. Is that sense connected to something actual or not - isn't this the most essential question?

interesting.
I recognize sin (going against the will/wishes of your chosen deity) and am still an atheist.

I can not help but wonder if I am not understanding what you are actually wanting to discuss....

 

[Jos]

What is meant is that belief in God follows from recognising the reality of sin. Recognising the reality of sin, is a recognition that right and wrong has actual foundation - is a reality, not just an imagined thing. (Eg. as evolutionary explanations would offer.)

We all recognise right and wrong - no society will go without it. No rational person will go without it.

Therefore, this is where the discussion should begin, it is posited.

To begin from, Do you believe in God? Is an easy get-out for the disbeliever, because it doesn't cost him anything to say no.

And that is dishonest, because, on a rational basis, it costs him everything.

The Euthyphro dillema presents a challenge to any notion of objective right and wrong or at least objective right and wrong with God as its foundation.

 

[Hereashortwhileonly]

You want to talk morality, fair enough.

I see morality as a human trait, and some other animals, mostly but not exclusively mammals. The morality of human beings allows them to function as a group and hence civilisation developed. From that civilisation greed and power control allowed religion to develop. Those who controlled religion took human morality and bastardised it to exclude any person who was not of their particular faith. And then the story of hatred and wars of religion really get going.

Personally I'll take human morality, human understand of right and wrong any day. Religious morality is just too damn selective, judgemental and hate ridden.

It sounds like you really dislike organised religion and religious authority.

So if you think an action is right and someone else thinks it's wrong, how do you know who has the truth? Or is there no way of saying?

 

[ChristineM]

It sounds like you really dislike organised religion and religious authority.

So if you think an action is right and someone else thinks it's wrong, how do you know who has the truth? Or is there no way of saying?

I don't really care one way or the other about religion unless its forced on people and/or it tried to tell me im wrong because of magic sky fairly. , I do find it hypocritical in many of its stances, morality being one.

Truth is an easy one. the quality or state of being true in accordance with fact or reality.

If that fails then there is always the law

 

[sun rise]

Your OP question may be specific or general: "sin" and "virtue" are Abrahamic religion's concepts. In dharmic religion, especially Buddhism, there are actions which lead to more suffering and actions which diminish suffering.

So it's not clear if you are focusing on reward, virtue, and punishment, vice, or differently.

I've found, for example, that atheists seek to uphold what they find as true and to reject what they find as false or unproven. In a sense, that is how atheists can see right and wrong.

 

[Hereashortwhileonly]

interesting.
I recognize sin (going against the will/wishes of your chosen deity) and am still an atheist.

I can not help but wonder if I am not understanding what you are actually wanting to discuss....

Seems to me that sin isn't synonymous with things that are universally accepted as wrong.

In some religions, eating certain foods, such as beef or shellfish, is a sin... People wouldn't necessarily conclude these things were wrong without dogmatic influence directing that bias. Things such as murder don't require scripture or dogma for folks to conclude it's wrong, though.

Okay, staying on the fundamental things - murder, theft, adultery.
If we agreed that consciousness of basic morality is intuitive to the human being, question is what is that based on?
I argue that it is based on the reality on sin, and therefore the awareness of God. On this basis, the truth of his/ her moral intuition would only be realised by calling wrong action by its true name - sin.

If he calls it something else, he is surreptitiously wanting to keep hold of belief in God, without accepting the cost
of disbelief.

Classically atheists have always accepted that no God = no foundation in morality. Eg. I murder someone, my conscience might nag at me, I might be denounced as evil by the world, but if I don't believe in the reality of sin, I can always say it doesn't really matter. And everything else is, as they say, "just noise".

Because we live in a secularised society the consequences of disbelief are not brought home to people because the whole society is complicit in maintaining the silence.

 

[McBell]

Interesting. I agree that people commonly still, in practice, live as though they believe in sin, even if they claim to be atheists. It is just that they have given the authority to some other source.

Except that is NOT what I said.
I said I recognize sin.
Not that I think it has any basis in reality.

Your quick jumping to the assumption that I "live as though I believe in sin" is nonsense.

My argument is one from intuition. We all know what it means to do wrong. Secular society allows us to act as though right and wrong don't actually exis

So far, from what I can tell, your "argument" is one from wishful thinking.
Right and wrong exist.
And secular society does not allow one to act as though right and wrong do not exist.
Unless you think laws, regulations, rules, etc. fail to distinguish right from wrong.

Seems to me your problem is that you think there has to be some absolute/objective source of right and wrong.
Which is nothing more than wishful thinking.

 

[Vouthon]

Sin is a religious concept, not relevant to the non religious or even to some religions.

I think that last part of your statement is right on the money and punctures some of the assumptions seemingly being made by the OP, which appears to presuppose a rather narrow understanding of religion (and take that as the 'normative worldview' for folks religious and non-religious).

There are religions that have no concept akin to sin (Buddhism, for example, speaks only of 'skilful' and 'unskilful' thoughts and behaviour) and some which explicitly deny the existence of 'sin', such as practically all branches, historically, of unorthodox Antinomian Christianity - an example being the early Gnostic sect that wrote The Gospel of Mary (2nd century AD) from Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 3525:


Gospel of Mary Text (maryofmagdala.com)

Then Peter said to him, "You have been explaining every topic to us; tell us one other thing. What is the sin of the world?"

The Savior replied, "There is no such thing as sin; rather you yourselves are what produces sin when you act in accordance with the nature of adultery, which is called 'sin.' For this reason, the Good came among you, pursuing (the good) which belongs to every nature. It will set it within its root."
​

And another second century Gnostic religious sect, the Carpocratians:


CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, I.25 (St. Irenaeus) (newadvent.org)

Carpocrates, again, and his followers...they declare they have in their power all things which are irreligious and impious, and are at liberty to practice them; for they maintain that things are evil or good, simply in virtue of human opinion...

And in their writings we read as follows, the interpretation which they give [of their views], declaring that Jesus spoke in a mystery to His disciples and apostles privately, and that they requested and obtained permission to hand down the things thus taught them, to others who should be worthy and believing. We are saved, indeed, by means of faith and love; but all other things, while in their nature indifferent, are reckoned by the opinion of men — some good and some evil, there being nothing really sinful by nature.​

 

[Hereashortwhileonly]

Except that is NOT what I said.
I said I recognize sin.
Not that I think it has any basis in reality.

Your quick jumping to the assumption that I "live as though I believe in sin" is nonsense.



So far, from what I can tell, your "argument" is one from wishful thinking.
Right and wrong exist.
And secular society does not allow one to act as though right and wrong do not exist.
Unless you think laws, regulations, rules, etc. fail to distinguish right from wrong.

Seems to me your problem is that you think there has to be some absolute/objective source of right and wrong.
Which is nothing more than wishful thinking.

Thanks for the response and clarification.
If you say right and wrong exist, it is beholden on you to say what is the foundation for this.
Laws exist, I accept. Conscience exists, I accept. Moral expectations of our family and neighbours exists, I accept. All these things exist.

In fact, the believer and the disbeliever don't disagree on any of these things. Where they part is whether it has any rational foundation, beyond expediency.

If it did not, then morality wouldn't exist in actuality - it would be a kind of "convenient mutually imagined thing" (eg. it just is! Humans are moral. Or, more deeper, an evolutionary explanation is offered.)

If it does exist, then the person who affirms that, is really affirming sin - and in doing so, is affirming the reality of God.

This is why the modern atheist has been dishonestly conditioned by society to see things the wrong way round. He claims that God is "wishful thinking", whereas actually everything he intuitively knows, relies on God - but because he has been conditioned to disbelieve, he rests all of that necessity on his own "wishful thinking" -

That he can hold on to morality and hold on to meaning without any of the cost.

 

[Bird123]

Is recognition of sin the essential dividing line between believers and non-believers?

Every person - except for a particular class of psychopath, perhaps - will have some idea of right and wrong. Therefore, this awareness is fundamental to the human being.

The awareness of God by contrast is not *necessarily* fundamental - in the sense that sometimes people will have such awareness, and sometimes not.

Recognition of sin is, implicitly, a recognition of God. Therefore, someone who recognises the reality of sin, is recognising God. He is a believer.

Someone who doesn't recognise sin, doesn't recognise God. He is a disbeliever.

Why is this important?

Because knowing what sin is doesn't require a leap of faith or seeking to the know the unseen. We all have this sense of right and wrong. Is that sense connected to something actual or not - isn't this the most essential question?

When one ventures beyond Beliefs, one Discovers sin is a man made concept. It has never ever been about Beliefs, Good, Evil, Sin or Saint. That is not what God is all about.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[McBell]

If it did not, then morality wouldn't exist in actuality - it would be a kind of "convenient mutually imagined thing" (eg. it just is! Humans are moral. Or, more deeper, an evolutionary explanation is offered.)

I hear this bold empty claim all the time.
Perhaps you will be the first in all of history to actually support it?

If it does exist, then the person who affirms that, is really affirming sin - and in doing so, is affirming the reality of God.

All you really said here is that if you believe in god then you affirm sin...

He claims that God is "wishful thinking",

When did I claim that God is wishful thinking?

whereas actually everything he intuitively knows, relies on God

Make up your mind.
Either it is "intuitively known" or it is from God.

- but because he has been conditioned to disbelieve,

Except I do not disbelieve in god.
I lack a belief in and a disbelief in God.

he rests all of that necessity on his own "wishful thinking" -

No, I flat out say I Do Not Know.
It is you who makes bold empty claims of the sources of right and wrong, not me.

That he can hold on to morality and hold on to meaning without any of the cost.

What cost?
Even when making the assumption your bold empty god claims are absolutely true, I fail to see a cost...