Do atheists believe in sin and attonement?

[whatevergirl]

To atheists–Do you acknowledge that there exists sin? If so–who are you sinning against, and what is the appropriate retribution? Let’s say someone who is an atheist commits adultery–is an apology enough to the injured party? Suppose the injured party never finds out–how do you ‘attone’ for your sins?

I was thinking about this the other day, and just curious as to the thoughts of atheists on here. Others who are not atheists, feel free to jump in with your thoughts, as well.

 

[puzzleannie]

probably should wait to answer, but many atheists of my aquaintance (and in my family) have actually developed strong rigid codes of ethics, because without the guidance of a supporting religious system, they have had to reason out issues on their own. the basis of their ethic and morality may be subjective, but it is sincere and well-reasoned to a point. they are, however, not generally receptive to the suggestion that the underlying premises of their logic bear scrutiny. In general such definitions of right and wrong depend on the damage done, which is a good basis for morality, but they are too subjective and leave out too many variables, in judging the extent of damage to themselves and to others.

 

[whatevergirl]

probably should wait to answer, but many atheists of my aquaintance (and in my family) have actually developed strong rigid codes of ethics, because without the guidance of a supporting religious system, they have had to reason out issues on their own. the basis of their ethic and morality may be subjective, but it is sincere and well-reasoned to a point. they are, however, not generally receptive to the suggestion that the underlying premises of their logic bear scrutiny. In general such definitions of right and wrong depend on the damage done, which is a good basis for morality, but they are too subjective and leave out too many variables, in judging the extent of damage to themselves and to others.

Hi annie–good points. I’m wondering though what the ‘attonement’ is for doing wrong? Is there any? In other faiths, other than Catholicism–what is the attonement? I know that in the Jewish faith, I believe Yom Kippor is a holy day of attonement–asking those who you have injured for forgiveness, etc…(I believe it’s Yom Kippor, I might be mistaken) But, if an atheist sets up his/her own moral code of conduct…what’s the basis of attonement based on, I wonder? I guess what I mean is…if a person does not follow ‘objective’ truths, then a need to be forgiven and ask for forgiveness, would of course, be subjective. If someone doesn’t have an objective moral compass–then the injuries are subjective.

 

[Steadfast]

probably should wait to answer, but many atheists of my aquaintance (and in my family) have actually developed strong rigid codes of ethics, because without the guidance of a supporting religious system, they have had to reason out issues on their own. the basis of their ethic and morality may be subjective, but it is sincere and well-reasoned to a point. they are, however, not generally receptive to the suggestion that the underlying premises of their logic bear scrutiny. In general such definitions of right and wrong depend on the damage done, which is a good basis for morality, but they are too subjective and leave out too many variables, in judging the extent of damage to themselves and to others.

Great insight.

I am assuming you are a theist.

Do you believe that, ultimately, all morality relies in some way upon the existence of a personal, providential God?

I haven’t reasoned it all the way out but I tend to think so.

It certainly is difficult for atheists to explain or value any moral choices beyond a vague reference to an evolutionary imperative or a social contract, both of which tend to fall flat when one attempts to go behind them to root justifications.

All we end up getting from them usually is speculation.

In short, in the final analysis, there is really no reason for atheists to be good.

 

[whatevergirl]

Great insight.

I am assuming you are a theist.

Do you believe that, ultimately, all morality relies in some way upon the existence of a personal, providential God?

I haven’t reasoned it all the way out but I tend to think so.

It certainly is difficult for atheists to explain or value any moral choices beyond a vague reference to an evolutionary imperative or a social contract, both of which tend to fall flat when one attempts to go behind them to root justifications.

All we end up getting from them usually is speculation.

In short, in the final analysis, there is really no reason for atheists to be good.

Interesting–I think that in all of us, whether we believe in God or not–there is a basic premise to do unto others as you would like to have done unto you. I think that it is common sense to a degree, to not steal, murder, etc…much of what the Commandments lay out. The interesting point to make about the Commandments is the one about the Sabbath, and holding it holy. It would mean that we cannot look at just some commandments, and discount others…the sum total is how we should live our lives, as Jews or Christians. I think Muslims believe in the 10 Commandments as well.

Where things get a little tricky…is where does common sense leave us, if we start to look at abortion, euthanasia, divorce…because for me, I believe there to be absolute/objective truths about such issues–and we can even see them illustrated in the Commandments. Granted, when it comes to divorce, if one does not view Jesus as having authority, or being Divine, then one views divorce through his/her moral lens. Perhaps, that is part of the problem with society, is that when we look through our own lens for morality – we have differing views on right/wrong, and sin, in general. I think that without an objective point of view, can there exist sin? Who says so? If my husband were to cheat on me, and let’s say I’m an atheist–yes, it hurts me…but, does it not impact society, in some trickle effect kind of way? When looking at sin objectively–or through the eyes of God–there is no guess work involved–we know–here are the rules, and not following them, has consequences. Not sure if a common sense approach to morality could get us that far.

 

[Mirdath]

‘Sin’ is perhaps the wrong term. Sin as theists take it is doing wrong against God, against others, and against the self. Obviously an atheist (or an agnostic for that matter) would not consider the first of the three an issue at all.

Another thing to keep in mind is that atheism and agnosticism are not religions; they’re positions on a single theological issue. Trying to ask if atheists in general believe thus-and-such (other than ‘does God exist?’) or prefer boxers/boyshorts to briefs/grannypanties will get you nowhere. It’s like herding cats – although I’d be interested to see the results of a poll on the latter question

That said, a good many of us do in fact admit to the reality of wrongdoing, or ‘sin’ in the latter two senses. Some of us will even go so far as to say that certain things are absolutely, universally right and wrong! Not that that will necessarily stop us from wrongdoing out of convenience or necessity now and then (as in the classic Gestapo-at-the-door scenario), but if you were better than we in that regard you wouldn’t have the sacrament of confession, now would you?

Atonement varies even for theists, as I’m sure you know well. One priest may tell you to say three Hail Marys, another may have you go a rosary or two, another may tell you, as in my childhood, to keep your room clean for a week (thanks, Father Chuck…grumblegrumble), or, as the same priest to my mother, to bake cookies for your kids (thank YOU, Father Chuck!).

Personally, I figure that wrongdoing is absolute, but atonement is subjective. Ideally, it’d be enough that the penitent and the victim could agree that they are once more on even ground, and choose to continue to interact or just to go their separate ways. There’s absolutely no way to quantify just how much would be needed speaking universally for a particular instance of wrongdoing: one person may not be as adversely affected by the wrong as another, and so the degree of atonement is different.

 

[1234]

All we end up getting from them usually is speculation.

In short, in the final analysis, there is really no reason for atheists to be good.

Well, most of the atheists I know are very good. They–we (I’m an agnostic, crypto-atheist), have a very strong code of honor which guides us day by day. It’s Epicurean in origin as I’ve said before. The Golden Rule. Do unto others. Don’t break the law–you’ll hurt others, hurt yourself, eventually be punished. Support charities. Be honest and generous. Be kind, patient–you’d want people to be all of this to you and your family, wouldn’t you? Don’t do drugs–they’ll destroy you and your family are illegal. Ditto alcohol in excess. Ditto cigarettes, except that they aren’t illegal. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this out.

Most of the people I know aren’t church goers and are very moral. The rest are UU’s and they’re moral, too.

A person who is prevented from wrongdoing only by a fear of hell has no system of ethics.

 

[whatevergirl]

A person who is prevented from wrongdoing only by a fear of hell has no system of ethics.

Excellent point, I agree.

 

[Exalt]

Atonement is “a doctrine found within both Christianity and Judaism. It describes how sin can be forgiven by God.”

Sin is “a term used mainly in a religious context to describe an act that violates a moral rule, or the state of having committed such a violation. Commonly, the moral code of conduct is decreed by a divine entity (such as God in the Abrahamic religions).”

Atheists like me don’t believe in God. So we don’t believe that there’s any need to ask a non-existant being for forgiveness for anything.

 

[brycelaliberte]

Atheists like me don’t believe in God. So we don’t believe that there’s any need to ask a non-existant being for forgiveness for anything.

So, if there’s no objective need for forgiveness, can there be an objective reason for right and wrong? Wrong leads to need for forgiveness, and forgiveness can only be truly absolute by some absolute authority in the matter. If it were just forgiveness from a person, have you truly received absolute forgiveness?

I’m just wondering, if there’s no need for forgiveness, can there be a reasoning for belief in right and wrong?

 

[whatevergirl]

So, if there’s no objective need for forgiveness, can there be an objective reason for right and wrong? Wrong leads to need for forgiveness, and forgiveness can only be truly absolute by some absolute authority in the matter. If it were just forgiveness from a person, have you truly received absolute forgiveness?

I’m just wondering, if there’s no need for forgiveness, can there be a reasoning for belief in right and wrong?

Good point. There are of course many times in a person’s life, where he/she won’t have the opportunity to ask for forgiveness of another, perhaps the person sinned against him/herself…I think of the ‘sin’ of porn, or masturbation–and if one say is not married, and is basically sinning against self–how would a person know to ask for forgiveness, or even view those things as sins? Who dictates the sins of the flesh, for an atheist, if no “other” person is offended? We are in essence sinning against God–but if one does not believe in God, then does that person see such sins as listed above, as wrong? If so–why?

 

[RebeccaJ]

To atheists–Do you acknowledge that there exists sin? If so–who are you sinning against, and what is the appropriate retribution? Let’s say someone who is an atheist commits adultery–is an apology enough to the injured party? Suppose the injured party never finds out–how do you ‘attone’ for your sins?

I was thinking about this the other day, and just curious as to the thoughts of atheists on here. Others who are not atheists, feel free to jump in with your thoughts, as well.

In my atheist days, I didn’t believe in sin or an atonement. Like others have explained, I had my own codes of ethics, which for me leaned towards humanism.

Though, I was kinder to others than I was to myself. And was able to justify just about anything I wanted. I stuck within the laws of the land for the most part…no arrests or anything. But what I could get away with within laws…wide open! Wasn’t good for me. I need some boundaries.

 

[1234]

BTW, y’all, the very good novel, Atonement, is well-named for a reason–I highly recommend his book, failing that–the movie, tho’ I didn’t see it–for its treatment of this subject.

I would not be surprised at all, if this novel made it into the reading lists of philosophy and religion in RC colleges…

Basically, in the natural world, I think that atonement can only be partial for serious sins or crimes. Best not to do them in the first place.

ANYway, the book is a very good read.

 

[Exalt]

So, if there’s no objective need for forgiveness, can there be an objective reason for right and wrong? Wrong leads to need for forgiveness, and forgiveness can only be truly absolute by some absolute authority in the matter. If it were just forgiveness from a person, have you truly received absolute forgiveness?

I’m just wondering, if there’s no need for forgiveness, can there be a reasoning for belief in right and wrong?

I hate philosophy. If you want to go play merry-go-round with an atheist go find another one.

I think practically and scientifically. We probably developed a sense of right and wrong to help our species survive and make our little societies flourish. It’s useful for us today for the same reason. I have a deep sense of right and wrong. Some of it’s rational. Some of it isn’t. That doesn’t mean any of it came from a divine being.

 

[whatevergirl]

I hate philosophy. If you want to go play merry-go-round with an atheist go find another one.

I think practically and scientifically. We probably developed a sense of right and wrong to help our species survive and make our little societies flourish. It’s useful for us today for the same reason. I have a deep sense of right and wrong. Some of it’s rational. Some of it isn’t. That doesn’t mean any of it came from a divine being.

"play merry-go-round with an atheist’ haha

Anyways…my husband has a few sisters, one of them an atheist…and she says a lot of what you’re saying–that right/wrong was a “convenient methodolgy” for keeping societies in line. But…someone…somewhere…very very early on…had to set things in motion–why, I wonder? And frankly, early historical morality–for lack of a better phrase–didn’t seem subjective–it seemed rather objective, and in close proximity to the 10 Commandments.

 

[Mirdath]

I’m just wondering, if there’s no need for forgiveness, can there be a reasoning for belief in right and wrong?

Obviously I cannot answer for Exalt – see my comment about herding cats – but one can think of forgiveness as a nicety extended between individuals who want to look past the wrongs committed between them and move on. In that perspective, forgiveness is not a need but still something worth pursuing. It allows the parties involved to get over their hurts and grudges and continue to work together for mutual benefit.

And in that perspective, there is certainly room for right and wrong. It’s a fairly nebulous version – ‘right’ is what allows cooperation, ‘wrong’ hinders it – a close relative of utilitarianism. Not something I consider ethically sound, but still workable to an extent. Sort of like how Newtonian physics is ‘close enough’ to teach in first-semester classes.

whatevergirl:

There are of course many times in a person’s life, where he/she won’t have the opportunity to ask for forgiveness of another, perhaps the person sinned against him/herself…I think of the ‘sin’ of porn, or masturbation–and if one say is not married, and is basically sinning against self–how would a person know to ask for forgiveness, or even view those things as sins? Who dictates the sins of the flesh, for an atheist, if no “other” person is offended? We are in essence sinning against God–but if one does not believe in God, then does that person see such sins as listed above, as wrong? If so–why?

Obviously the person in question determines what is a sin against the self. That holds true for everybody, theist or atheist: just look at all the arguments here over whether getting a tattoo or indulging in liquor is sinful!

 

[Exalt]

Obviously I cannot answer for Exalt – see my comment about herding cats – but one can think of forgiveness as a nicety extended between individuals who want to look past the wrongs committed between them and move on. In that perspective, forgiveness is not a need but still something worth pursuing. It allows the parties involved to get over their hurts and grudges and continue to work together for mutual benefit.

And in that perspective, there is certainly room for right and wrong. It’s a fairly nebulous version – ‘right’ is what allows cooperation, ‘wrong’ hinders it – a close relative of utilitarianism. Not something I consider ethically sound, but still workable to an extent. Sort of like how Newtonian physics is ‘close enough’ to teach in first-semester classes.

There’s a big difference between explaining why we feel morality and how we rationally determine what morality is.

I think the second is almost totally worthless, and the first is interesting.

 

[crowonsnow]

A person who is prevented from wrongdoing only by a fear of hell has no system of ethics.

Steadfast:

In short, in the final analysis, there is really no reason for atheists to be good.

FWIW, I’ve always thought it to be the mark of a supremacist that one person, while observing another person behaving in an upright respectful moral manner, can still find fault with that person.

 

[Steadfast]

Well, most of the atheists I know are very good. They–we (I’m an agnostic, crypto-atheist), have a very strong code of honor which guides us day by day. It’s Epicurean in origin as I’ve said before. The Golden Rule. Do unto others. Don’t break the law–you’ll hurt others, hurt yourself, eventually be punished. Support charities. Be honest and generous. Be kind, patient–you’d want people to be all of this to you and your family, wouldn’t you? Don’t do drugs–they’ll destroy you and your family are illegal. Ditto alcohol in excess. Ditto cigarettes, except that they aren’t illegal. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this out.

Most of the people I know aren’t church goers and are very moral. The rest are UU’s and they’re moral, too.

A person who is prevented from wrongdoing only by a fear of hell has no system of ethics.

I didn’t say atheists weren’t or couldn’t be good.

I said they had no reason to be good. They really don’t. What would their reason be? Fear of the civil authority? Why has the civil authority ordained this or that behavior licit and good? If it has done so from a religious motivation surely the atheist would not be bound by that, at least not if he is to be honest with his convictions.

But then I am talking about personal moral behavior. There are many good atheists, but why are they good? Just because it’s easier to get along? Because it’s the accepted behavior? Because evolution has, effectively, mandated it (e.g. incest)? Because these are just old conventions we persist in maintaining?

I’m sorry, none of these form the kind of foundation a person would need for the formation of an ethical, moral system. In any of these scenarios, morality becomes relatively determined; i.e. it becomes subject to some external circumstance and will always be movable by contingency, whatever that contingency may be.

It may merely be the decision that this or that proscription or dictate does not apply to the person.

And, I don’t know any Christians who are motivated to be good by a fear of hell. I suppose they exist, but I don;t know any.