(December 2, 2008 at 5:15 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: If you're not religious. You just believe in God and the bible. Then why bother with the word sin? Its SO OFTEN used religiously. And labeled to mean the religious sins in the bible. Why bother with it if you don't mean it religiously? It can create a lot of misunderstandings in that case. Why bother? Why use the word sin? If you don't actually believe in the "sins" of the bible. How most people understand them. Why call them sins at all? Why not refer to them as immoral, bad or wrong actions?
By definition I am religious, I personally think that everybody has a religious nature. A firm adherence to a system of belief. But as far as the use of words like sin, soul, hell etc. I think that it is important to be aware of the religious use as well as the scriptural use if there is a difference. I don't know why you would say that I don't actually believe in the "sins" of the Bible. Why wouldn't I? Most people think of sin in a limited sense. Limited by a perception of being a condemnation from religion when in fact there is a more practical meaning. The Bible is always more practical than religious superstition.
(December 2, 2008 at 5:15 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: If by "sin" you just mean "immoral actions" then atheists do sin. But if by sin you mean THAT. Then why call it sin? That's not what most people generally think as sin Sins are normally thought of as a religious thing. It can cause misunderstandings. Its a bad word to use. It has a bad reputation.
Well, immoral action is defined by the society and time in which a person lives. So that is a mark that is set, when that mark is missed then it is a sin. I use the word correctly and am not limited by it, and for me this has two advantages. 1. It makes the obvious distinction between the religious conotation and the Biblical meaning so that the two are not confused. and 2. It educates on that distinction so as not to encourage the ignoring of that distinction. I don't believe in the concept that words are bad. Words are words.
(December 2, 2008 at 5:15 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: You say that some atheists think of God as a tyrant. But guess what? You just described as one.
So ok Adam and Eve are given what they want. The break a rule and get punished right?
So God lets them do what they want...but they are still PRISONERS. If God doesn't like what they do, they get punished. Right?
Sounds like sick twisted moral policing to me. Whats the point of putting people in a paradise if as soon as they do something apparently wrong to God he punishes them for it.
They only had one regulation to keep, and it wasn't a whisical one on God's part, it was necessary for their survival and the survival of mankind in the future.
(December 2, 2008 at 5:15 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Now you've mentioned Adam!
Ruddy hell! So you're either not here to teach "about" the bible you actually are willing to talk about your beliefs. Or you've accidentally made a bit of a cock-up (this means mistake in Britain in case you don't know).
I have no idea what you are talking about. It makes no sense to me at all, even though I am somewhat familiar with British vernacular. Though, now you have mentioned it I don't understand what it means to say "Bob's your uncle." Actually I do happen to have an uncle whos name, is, in fact, Bob, but I don't see how it would apply.
(December 2, 2008 at 5:15 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Ok, so you say the question is, am I in or am I out? Well why on earth would I be in? Why would I be in just one random belief that there is no support of over any other of the very very many conceivable things to commit to? And even if there was only one CONCEIVABLE "God". And it would be yours. Why would I pick him? There's no GOOD reason to believe in him. There is neither any reason to believe he EXISTS. Or that believing in him will effect me postiively if I DID believe it. AND belief is NOT a matter of policy. So I can't choose what I believe anyway. If I for some deluded reason wanted to believe in God. And thought it was right, but still didn't. Thinking "I believe, I believe I believe" over and over again. Will NOT make me believe. I need to be convinced. I need a compelling answer. I am not convinced. There isn't any compelling answer that I know of.
I see.
(December 2, 2008 at 5:15 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Belief is not a matter of policy. Which is one of the reasons Pascal's Wager falls completely on its face right away anyway. And Pascals Wager is of course just based on fear and wishful thinking. NOT very profound.
I'm out.
Pascal doesn't have anything to do with it. Fair enough. You are out.
