Atheists and Sin

[jules96]

I think sin is a religious concept and most of the things you listed are just feelings people have unless they act on them to hurt someone else. There is nothing wrong with feeling pride, and I think you should feel pride in some things ( jobs well done, your family, personal aspects of yourself, etc.) Envy and jealousy are just feelings humans have sometimes and as long as someone doesn't act in a way to hurt someone else because of these feelings, that's all they are - feelings. Psychologists will tell you that it's ok to have feelings, what is wrong is to act in a way that harms others because of these feelings. Over-indulgence usually only hurts the person that is over-indulging (heart-disease, financial problems, etc), and I think it is bad judgment and lack of common sense instead of a sin. There is nothing wrong with mild vanity - being proud of the way you look, your figure, etc. Excessive vanity usually makes the vain person an object of ridiucle, thus only hurting that person. Healthy ambition is a good motivator. Excessive ambition can be harmful, if someone hurts another person in some way in order to beat that person out of a job position, etc. I really hate it when religious zelots try to make people feel guilty and bad for having normal human emotions.

[bozo]

It is a well established fact that the morals from the Bible simply come from the combination of morals already active at the time of it's writing. Every single moral value is based around self preservation. For example:

If someone murders you, you end up dead. Being dead is bad, therefore murder is immoral.
If someone steals something from you, you no longer have it and they have it for free when you paid for it. No longer having something is bad considering you have paid for it, therefore stealing is immoral.

Even something like charity is based on self-preservation. People rarely give to charity and keep quiet about it. People give to charity because they know that it looks good when they do, and looking good is beneficial in society.

Adrian, glad you bring up charity at this juncture. I am a socialist and see charity as a capitalist phenomenon. In a socialist state it would not be necessary. In this capitalist society I would argue that the giver to charity gets proportionally more " benefit " than the receiver. Charity is like putting an elastoplast on a gaping wound...it's no cure. On the other hand, the giver, like you say, feels a sense of " making a difference " and feeling good about him/herself.