(September 19, 2012 at 12:51 pm)apophenia Wrote: Evidence =/= understanding. We have evidence of gravity, that doesn't mean we understand it.
True, but we don't have the same evidence to support the validity of 'sin'. One of my better teachers in high school said that he didn't like the term 'morals' because it implied religious affiliation, and religious morals were usually flawed. He would use the term ethics.
Likewise, I don't like the term 'sin'. Sin is synonomous with bad deeds, but it is not necessarily always the same. Many theists use the existance of objective morality as 'proof' of god, but how objective do they mean? In ethics, a situation and course of action are analyzed to see if the action is ethical. With sin, a preset group of rules of thumb is followed (i.e. the ten commandments). However, the commandments are badly flawed, omitting things like rape, child/domestic abuse, slavery, etc. and putting blasphemy and missing church on the same level as murder. (Well, at least we know where their priorities were...)
John Adams Wrote:The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.
