Forums → WEPR → What makes sin, sin?

Sins are, as far as I know, any acts that are not along how a believer should act; and how a believer should act is stated in the holy scriptures. So in a way, it is a sin because god said so.
From a theists view, who will accept the bible's scale for judgement of acts, atheists can very well sin, but atheists from their view have their own concept of good and bad and therefore cannot sin in a religious sense.
At least that's how I guess it is.

Literally speaking sin is simply violating a moral standard. It is, however, a religious term and typically applies to violating any of the myriad 'morals' given by whichever one ascribes to. I think, though, that it is more appropriate to use it to identify an unjustifiable act which is detrimental to others. (e.g. killing a child molester before he commits the act of molestation would be justifiable)

In such a colloquial sense, then, sin would be anything which goes against the local society's accepted standards, nothing more. If you live with a group of cannibals then, per the accepted morals of the group, eating fellow humans would not be a sin.

The problem with setting any religion as a moral foundation for a group is that, in our current society, there are very few areas where all inhabitants ascribe to that particular religion. Furthermore, as has been pointed out numerous times in the WEPR, most (if not all) major religions have demonstrated morals which many of us openly find appalling, or at least take issue with. So if religion is the ultimate authority on morals why is it that there are those who ascribe to a particular religion would take issue with the morals handed down? Why would a deity create someone in such a manner that their personal morals, and indeed the morals of many, are opposed to some of what their religion teaches?

We have religions who teach us that it's okay to own and even beat slaves, who teach us that women are less valuable than men, that cruelty to animals is acceptable, infanticide in the name of God is a holy act, and that the genocide of entire cities is 'God's will'. Are these really the type of organizations who should be setting the moral standard for humanity? And, to take these religions literally, those who would refuse to do such things if ordered would be sinners and would be punished accordingly.

Personally I find sin to be a term that is often used, rarely applicable, and nearly always misunderstood. I would contend that, as there is no evidence that any religion or another holds a moral high ground, and much evidence to the contrary, that any term coined by religion to dictate or judge the morality of humans should be immediately rejected.

Sins are a religious way to promote/maintain morality. It is not that sins do not apply to the non religious, there is still a basic human moral code for everyone.

As far as I know, sins are actions agains people-God relatioship (our religion teacher said so).So atheistic would be sinful forever since they dont believe God.

(Dont get it wrong.I ahve nothing agains atheistic, and I an atheistic myself!)

So atheistic would be sinful forever since they dont believe God.

how is simply not believing in a God an action against said God

I guess it's simply because God likes attention. He's a bit of a drama queen, really.

Singing, dancing, music: Sinful

Now, I am not going to say that Christian are perfect. At all. In fact, I may be bold enough to say that we are sometimes worse than most atheists and Muslims.

and those are always good ideas and stories for your life.

It is when christians decide to interpret the bible any way that they want when things start to go foul.

To me, it depends what exactly you mean by "sin." Do you mean in the religious sense or the moral sense? Morality is not dictated by a deity, whether or not a deity exists because these actions must be good in it of themselves to be loved by a deity, so therefore, it is irrational to associate religion and morality.

Now, if you are referring by what makes an action a sinful one or not, I would respond by saying that it is an action's expected utility that justifies it morally or not.

Of the religious type, sin was made to keep the poor in control. Of the literal kind, it is all in perspective of your judgement.

More or less, in a summary, what makes something bad, bad. If it has to do with a deity or just human standards, what makes is bad? What makes cussing bad? Ect...

If it has to do with a deity or just human standards, what makes is bad? What makes cussing bad?

Now, if you are referring by what makes an action a sinful one or not, I would respond by saying that it is an action's expected utility that justifies it morally or not.

I'm a moral absolutist because morality does not generate from these. It cannot. But just because it doesn't does not imply that it does not exist. You can be an atheist and still be a moral absolutist - I'm a utilitarian, and I believe that:

But do you believe there is a consequence for sin?