Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Agreed. Besides, does anyone "deliberately refuse to believe" anything? Theists often assume atheists are being obstinate, that we secretly believe and just fight it. But particularly when the default in many areas of society is theistic, what would be the point? If I still had an inclination to believe I'd embrace it; indeed, that inclination is why it took me so long to find my way out of theism in the first place.
Indeed, I suspect this is mostly projection; in my experience it's actually theists who "refuse to disbelieve", and that makes more sense because beliefs are something you can actually cling to. Unbelief is a lack of something to cling to, it is the absence of belief. Theists are the ones who tend to get all up in arms at anything that contradicts their taboos or doctrines, who see doubt (and, frequently, facts) as a huge enemy. It is theists who speak of struggling with temptation, indifference, lack of commitment. You never hear a lifelong atheist who has not had their mind messed with by religion speak of struggling against a temptation to believe. You hear of formet theists tempted to return to old patterns but that is more a matter of avoiding hassles with family or with old tapes playing in your head that call to you, of missing old social support systems and the like.
All things being equal (and that's a big qualifier!!), an atheist finds the intellectual honesty and freedom attractive and doesn't have to work themselves into it; theists on the other hand find the intellectual suicide that is religion creates cognitive dissonance and find the artificial constraints on personal choice confining and this sets up a struggle that, as the Apostle Paul famously said, moves them to cry out, "Who shall deliver me from the body of this death??!".
I have always wanted to believe in a god, but over the last 8 or 9 years have simply found it impossible. My powers of critical thinking, which I have never considered to be exactly amazing, just won't allow me to believe in the existence of a god.
Anyway, I see similarities here in the discussion with one of the gay/straight arguments. I have always contended that gayness is not a choice. A gay person did not suddenly taken a stand against "straightness" and choose the more problematic lifestyle to be gay.
When an atheist does harm to someone then he's just as sinful as those of faith. I'm not going to get them off the hook for humane irresponsibility just because they don't believe.
My view: God has made Himself known to all humans, through creation, and therefore without excuse.
Which God?
As an atheist my point of view is that god (pick any of the countless versions) does not exist therefore sin does not exist. The whole concept of sin is moot for an atheist. If there is no sky daddy than how can you possibly sin by not following an equally imaginary list of rules?
I do not believe in god, I do not believe in sin, I do not believe in the devil, I do not believe in heaven, I do not believe in hell. Sin is a Christian construct that applies only to those that subscribe to the Christian belief.
Similarly, I do not believe in the theistic counterparts that are constructs of various other religions, which are too numerous to name.
I couldn't have explained it better!
Not sure what is so hard for believers to understand...we don't believe. Period!
By your reasoning; If two people (a quorum) decide to kill someone, it's not a sin if they decide it isn't a sin. This is a convenient ignorance.
This has been done(killing) through nations by both the religious and irreligious for centuries, hasn't it?
I don't think you're right. I think 'sin' is just a label for wrongdoing, or error. A lot of how we get to understand wrongdoing is by trial and error and observation of others. Most of us gravitate toward what feels good. Experience has taught us that we do best if we form societies and look out for each other, so we have moral codes that include taking care of our brother. So we have come up with this list of right and wrong over time to make life more pleasant for more of us. We codified it and gave it the 'god' stamp to have the extra enforcement of a god behind them.
So here we are, many generations later, forgetting how we derived some of these things but still trying to adhere to them. But it gets increasingly difficult. Times change things. Some of those dictates of the god simply don't apply today. Some make no sense at all. The globe is over populated. We are choking in our own refuse. We don't stone kids for being disobedient. Women and gays and other ethnicities are to be treated equally. It is just fine if your neighbor doesn't share your particular view of god, too. It matters little if he even believes in a god.
We have learned right and wrong independently of a god and pretty soon will not be needing that crutch. And perhaps, if there is a god, this is his intention because he seems to have set us on this planet, given us a list of regulations, and just disappeared. Maybe the name of the game is - you're grown up, let's see how well you do on your own? Maybe god intends for us all to be wise atheists?
Last edited by goldengrain; 12-08-2012 at 01:07 AM..
for sure, an atheist can 'sin' against his own moral creed but not sure it's the same as in the religious sense.
Sin seems to be a very man made construct - ie: it is often considered a sin to commit adultery, but take God out of the equation then I doubt there's a lot of guilt going around.
God makes us feel guilty when we are often only following our animal instincts.
so why did God give us these instincts in the first place?
We are animals, indeed, only we might transcend when we are acting out of our higher being. We have brains and can anticipate the future and, therefore, the moral consequences of our actions.
If your mate has turned out to be slime there probably is very little recrimination attached to finding joy with another. If your mate is a decent person then, yes, there would be guilt - the guilt that you gave your word ot another person, whom you respected and still do, and that they are walking through life still believing that you honor your vow but you, you little creep, are letting them down. You wrong both them and yourself.
Then there are people who profess to be happy swingers.
I think the guilt situation all depends on what you and your mate think those wedding vows meant. You should also realize that years back it was pretty much only the wealthy who married. Marriage was a way to legitimize your line of heirs so upon death your wealth would go only to those children and not some bastards who laid claim to it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
