Atheeists: who told you sin is not sin?

Names anyone of who told you it is not sin.
My Hindu friends do not consider rejecting the first three of the 10 commandments to be a sin. My Muslim friends do not consider rejecting Jesus as the son of God to be a sin. My Jewish friends do not consider rejecting Jesus as the messiah to be a sin.

So....lots of people.
 

ferengi

Well-known member
My Hindu friends do not consider rejecting the first three of the 10 commandments to be a sin. My Muslim friends do not consider rejecting Jesus as the son of God to be a sin. My Jewish friends do not consider rejecting Jesus as the messiah to be a sin.

So....lots of people.
So what - prove they are right
 

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
I do not think it is false. However, it is connected to God and Christianity. God decides what is and is not a sin. Atheists do not believe in God. So we do not really recognize sin as something good or bad since we see no reason to believe the judgement of sin comes from the creator of the universe.

We understand sin is behavior that God condemns. We just do not believe in God so there is no sense in worrying about sin.
Yet.
 
True. I am always open to changing my mind or beliefs on better evidence. If we fins empirical evidence that proves the Christian god is real then I will change my mind. So far I have only seen ancient texts that are no different from any other texts, personal testimony of Christians that is no different from the personal testimony of Muslims and Hindus, and vague threats that I'll find out after I die which are no different than the vague threats of Hindus and Muslims.

I've changed my belief lots of times based on better evidence being found. I changed my thinking on Global Warming, Supply Side Economics, the benefit of punishment in the American prison system, and others. I try to be open to changing any idea if the evidence is compelling and I think I am pretty good at it.

So I do not believe yet - true. Just waiting on some empirical evidence that differentiated Christianity for the other 10,000 religions.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
My Hindu friends do not consider rejecting the first three of the 10 commandments to be a sin. My Muslim friends do not consider rejecting Jesus as the son of God to be a sin. My Jewish friends do not consider rejecting Jesus as the messiah to be a sin.

So....lots of people.
So you can't post a name. How will God waste his time considering what sinners you hang out with say.
Your Hindu friends are not very sharp since they elevate monkeys to the level of deities.
 
And when The Holy Spirit CONVICTS YOU of your SIN, and of Judgement, you'll have it. Nothing else will do.
Not when - if. Since you have not established that anything you believe is true. And if all you have is a threat if punishment that you cannot prove then you have no real argument.

Thanks though. In turn, I hope you are not convicted of the sin of rejecting Lord Shiva - you'll be reborn as a lower life form. There is no reason to believe that but using your logic we do not need proof - we just yell supernatural threats, right?

When I ask for evidence and logic the Christian usually devolves to this kind of unprovable threat - it marks the end of the debate.

Have a great weekend.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
Who told you it was a false concept?

Please post the name and no more.

Name
As noted to another poster....
It appears that sin is an old legal term.


sin (n.)​

Old English synn "moral wrongdoing, injury, mischief, enmity, feud, guilt, crime, offense against God, misdeed," from Proto-Germanic *sundiō "sin" (source also of Old Saxon sundia, Old Frisian sende, Middle Dutch sonde, Dutch zonde, German Sünde "sin, transgression, trespass, offense," extended forms), probably ultimately "it is true," i.e. "the sin is real" (compare Gothic sonjis, Old Norse sannr "true"), from PIE *snt-ya-, a collective form from *es-ont- "becoming," present participle of root *es- "to be."
The semantic development is via notion of "to be truly the one (who is guilty)," as in Old Norse phrase verð sannr at "be found guilty of," and the use of the phrase "it is being" in Hittite confessional formula. The same process probably yielded the Latin word sons (genitive sontis) "guilty, criminal" from present participle of sum, esse "to be, that which is." Some etymologists believe the Germanic word was an early borrowing directly from the Latin genitive. Also see sooth.
Sin-eater is attested from 1680s. To live in sin "cohabit without marriage" is from 1838; used earlier in a more general sense. Ice hockey slang sin bin "penalty box" is attested from 1950.

sin (v.)
Old English syngian "to commit sin, transgress, err," from synn (see sin (n.)); the form influenced by the noun. Compare Old Saxon sundion, Old Frisian sendigia, Middle Dutch sondighen, Dutch zondigen, Old High German sunteon, German sündigen "to sin." Form altered from Middle English sunigen by influence of the noun.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
The first time the word sin appears in the bible is when Cain is leading up to murdering his brother.

1603489592711.png
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
The first time the word sin appears in the bible is when Cain is leading up to murdering his brother.

View attachment 13
And Cain never even heard of the 10 commandments.

You and I know why Cain knew it was sin.
 
You don't have the tools to measure what he believes.

......and you believe Hitler and belt buckles send troo messages?

lol..
I believe that the empirical evidence of millions of Nazi uniforms with "Gott Mtt Uns" on them, Hitler's writing of God in his manifesto, and the census of the German people is very compelling proof that the Nazi's were not an atheist organization.

What is your countering evidence that atheism was a core Nazi belief? You are claiming the Nazi's were atheist. Can you back that with any empirical evidence?
 

Tiburon

Member
Which would be what exactly?
I'm not sure.
You seem to believe there is a creator so what evidence do you base your belief on?
Our lack of explanation for the origin of the universe could lead us to fill the gap with a deist god. But I don't think a deist God would be concerned with sin.
Sin I would think would necessitate an interactive God. I see no evidence of such.
 

ferengi

Well-known member
I'm not sure.
So how will you know if evidence is actually presented?

You seem to believe there is a creator so what evidence do you base your belief on?
Shifting the burden,
I see no evidence of such.
An argument from ignorance. How would you know you have not seen any if you admit you would not know what that evidence would look like? Now you commit circular logic.
 
Top