Ep. 102: How can we not sin?

[yjoeyh]

Sin means to disobey a god, and I'm sure you already know this. I may do something wrong, but I don't "sin" as there is no such a thing as a god to disobey or displease. Play straight Joey. Because what you're doing isn't playing semantics, it's weaseling.

…says the pot to the kettle. I find it amusing that every time I use a definition right out of the dictionary (including this time, "sin: any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc.; great fault or offense") you accuse me of weaseling or redefining words. We’re just trying to get on the same page here for the purpose of discussion. These kinds of diversionary tactics are really quite pointless, and I let myself get sucked into them for the sake of trying to avoid confusion.
But your insistence on using such poor definitions is a good indication that you have very little knowledge of what kinds of things are actually taught in Christianity. I can definitely respect a difference of opinion, but this is just willfull ignorance on your part.
Come on. I know your better (and smarter)than that.

Then why use the word sin? If you want to describe immoral behavior, You can say immoral and we would know exactly what you are talking about. I don't believe in "sin" (in the traditional sense of the word). How are you trying to use that word?

I mostly agree with your point. And to be technical, I’m not the one really using the term. I’ve been using much more commonly accepted language just like you describe. Other people have been throwing around the "sin" word, but I tend to favor different terms. There’s nothing wrong with using it… as it is a valid term for what we are talking about, and we all know what it means. I just prefer to use other terms, precisely to avoid tangents like this.

Part of me has to wonder why anyone would even post in a forum thread, where you object to a specific term being used in the discussion, when the word itself is in the title of the thread? I wouldn’t post in a leprechaun thread and object to the use of the word, “leprechaun” unless I just wanted to be a jerk for some reason. The people objecting here don’t seem to be that shallow though. They usually have a valid point of some kind. The only point I can see though is to draw attention away from more pertinent topics where they appear to be losing ground… just an observation.

[humanguy]

But your insistence on using such poor definitions is a good indication that you have very little knowledge of what kinds of things are actually taught in Christianity.

Why should an atheist care about what is taught in Christianity, and why should it matter to a Christian whether or not an atheist knows of these teachings?

[yjoeyh]

Why should an atheist care about what is taught in Christianity,

If they want to have a meaningful discussion with a Christian, or talk about Christianity in an honest and sincere way, they need to understand where the Christian is coming from, and that means taking an honest assessment of their position. Now an Atheist isn't under any kind of obligation to engage in discussions with Christians, so if they don't want to talk to them, there's no reason they "should" care. Why would such a person be in this forum though?

and why should it matter to a Christian whether or not an atheist knows of these teachings?

For the exact same reasons. If a Christian has anything to gain from conversing with an Atheist, not only do they have a responsibility to learn what Atheism is and what kinds of philosophical framework the individual they are talking to has, they also should have an expectation that the Atheist is basing what they say, especially challenges, or refutations, on accurate representations of what we are bringing to the table. How can we gain anything from the discussion otherwise?

[humanguy]

Why should an atheist care about what is taught in Christianity,

If they want to have a meaningful discussion with a Christian, or talk about Christianity in an honest and sincere way, they need to understand where the Christian is coming from, and that means taking an honest assessment of their position. Now an Atheist isn't under any kind of obligation to engage in discussions with Christians, so if they don't want to talk to them, there's no reason they "should" care. Why would such a person be in this forum though?

It's a good point. I've been asking myself that very question lately.

[yjoeyh]

It's a good point. I've been asking myself that very question lately.

I think there's probably a good answer though. As a Christian, I can only speculate and give reasons for my participation. Do any Atheists here have any insight as to what you hope to gain from conversation with Christians? I think Emery and some others lay out some pretty good and valid reasons why they enjoys the discussion. Anyone else want to chime in?

[humanguy]

Completely selfish on my part, I have to admit. When you have to put previously vague notions into specifically worded statements it can serve to solidify those notions, if that makes any sense.

After having been a participant here for over a year, maybe longer, I'm convinced more than ever that god is a human invention. I am also convinced that I'll never be able to convince anyone else of that.

So why am I still here? I find it fairly stimulating, I guess, and I like the podcasts.

[Keep The Reason]

I think there's probably a good answer though. As a Christian, I can only speculate and give reasons for my participation. Do any Atheists here have any insight as to what you hope to gain from conversation with Christians? I think Emery and some others lay out some pretty good and valid reasons why they enjoys the discussion. Anyone else want to chime in?

For me it's a part of wanting to be involved in shaping our culture. No real surprise that I think we as a species are at a significant crossroads given the events of 9/11 and the renaissance of atheistic visibility, particularly in areas like the USA, where we have lost sight of our very vocal, and very clear secular origins, and with the aftermath of the impact of the Religious Right on our freedoms and political discourse.

So for me, a lot of this is socio-political, and that's where I put a lot of my real time energies. I do on occasion learn from the posters here something I did not previously know, and I get a lot of historical references from Moonwood, which I appreciate. I find my most valuable lessons though via the other non-believers, who are willing to task me for my posts in productive ways.