Nope, (some of these) these are CRIMINAL behaviors. And as such it is **NOT **okay for people to commit these acts. Nothing strange about it. “Sin” means a transgression against God’s commands (though sometimes it is used in the meaning of “missing the mark”). Since there is no evidence that God exists, or that he ever gave us a clear and unmistakable list of “do’s and don’t’s”, the concept of sin is vacuous.
"In Abrahamic contexts, sin is the act of violating God’s will.Sin can also be viewed as anything that violates the ideal relationship between an individual and God. Sin can also be viewed as any diversion from the ideal order for human living. To sin has been defined as “to miss the mark”. " This definition is from Wikipedia.
So if the government legalized those behaviors would you consider them acceptable?
That because some event has, to date, no explanation, does not entail there is none. Merely because you logically take the step from “I require no explanation” to “It’s a brute fact” does not mean that the “brute fact” is indeed a “brute fact.”
It depends, which one you wish to talk about. Certain “sinful” acts, like sex before marriage, or contraception or masturbation are not criminal acts, and they are not morally wrong - according to my definition of morality, which you probably do not share. Others, like rape and murder are both morally wrong and criminally wrong in current societies. But don’t forget that in medieval Japan the samurai class could kill anyone for no reason at all, an it was not considered a “criminal” act. So the question is complicated.
Correct. If it happens under oath it is called “perjury” and that would be a criminal act.
Right . . . . superficially different in that naive empirical observations don’t require any of the three/four steps of the scientific method. And essentially the same in that the definition of empiricism does not contain any of the elements of the scientific method, except arguably observation. So if we now redefine the words “superficial” and “essential,” to mean their antonyms (which I’m not sure is strictly possible), only then can there be communication. Now why would one want to use language in a way that makes communication impossible, when ostensibly the entire purpose of this thread was to communicate something true about the scientific method?
This is an argument from ignorance. The apparent sizes of the Sun and the Moon are the result of their individual sizes and their respective distance from Earth. And since the size and the distance could be different - the distance of the Moon is actually a variable - there is no reason to assume some sort of a causal relationship. It is simply what it is, and it could be different. So it is a brute fact. Let’s say that “provisionally” it is.
There is no metaphysical warrant for the assumption of PSR. And since you assume that God is a brute fact - without an explanation and without a need for explanation, you have no ground to complain that others consider other facts to be “brute facts”. You cannot escape the existence of “brute facts” since no chain of explanations can descend into infinity. So the PSR is NOT a universal concept.
Since our life is finite, and there are much more useful and interesting problems to pursue, it is entirely warranted to disregard unimportant “problems”. Just like the proponents of the paranormal are welcome to investigate the “curative powers” of crystals and “pyramidal structures”, you are most welcome to look for causal relationships, where there are none, and if there were, it would be irrelevant.
So you do have a code of morality even if you do not acknowledge the word “sin”. Certain acts are either evil or good, although many are neither. It doesn’t matter which society you belong to, an evil act is evil whether society sanctions it or not. Do we agree?
Isn’t this how the scientific method works? Someone wonders about a causal relationship and then investigates it using the scientific method? You act like science has all the definitive answers and it never will change. Man’s imagination is what drives scientific theories. “Science” changes constantly. What the world thought was scientifically true a few hundred years ago compared with today, and what the world will think about today’s scientific truths in a few hundred years has and will differ.
You don’t understand the idea of faith. We believe without evidence (the concept of faith). It may seem crazy to you, but we don’t “need” evidence to prove God exists. We just have a bond with Him. Again, you can’t prove God… He cannot be tested. He is not something observable in our universe like a granulated cylinder filled with chemicals or a far-off star, he exists outside the boundaries of the universe. My last two cents of this thread! PS testing effects like sacraments and prayer are not possible, as he does not respond to prayers designed to test Him. He sees all… ultimately, this is personal belief, Hee_Zen.
Of course. And my concept of morality is “objective”, though it is not “absolute”. It was “not written on my heart”, it is the result of the many years when I was brought up by my parents, and learned how to behave. Basically it is the “inverted golden rule”.
The problem is now the definition of “evil”. I will offer mine, and maybe you will agree, but maybe not. Here comes the first approximation, which can be amended if such an amendment is warranted: “Evil is to cause harm to a being, which has a nervous system with a pleasure/pain center in it. The one who inflicts the harm must be aware of this fact. The one who suffers the harm did not consent to the action. The harm inflicted is not mitigated by some other, beneficial effects”. It is quite a mouthful, I am afraid, but that is how I define “evil”. I am aware of alternate definitions, like “evil is the privation of good”, but that is overly simplistic to the point of nonsense.
How about wounding someone psychologically - Laughing at their distress or their pain, demeaning them, etc.?
Harm is not necessarily a physical harm. But there is a problem with your examples. They are overly “generic”, you did not elaborate on all the necessary components so I could make a judgment.
I don’t doubt that that your concept of “sin” is committing “real evil”, though I have no idea what “not real evil” means. But “sin” in general was taken to be “disobeying God”. So we must be sure that we use it in the meaning, otherwise talk “past each other”.
Of course I do. I was a believer myself.
So in your opinion God is a shameless cheater, who will twist the results of an honest test, just so that he can stay hidden… I wonder, what does he have to hide? Or what is he ashamed of? After all, it would be in OUR best interest to know that God exists, and by giving us the explicit rules of “game”, we could make a good stab of getting into heaven, if we wanted to.
What further elaboration do you need? How could raping a child ever be good?
No the definition of sin is doing evil. When you sin against God you are sinning against “good”, since God is all good. Whether you believe in God or not, you do have a moral compass, and you know in your own heart what is good and evil. I am sure of that.
98% of Atheists think that random google sites that “oh god doesn’t exist” = science.
Actually, believing without evidence is fideism, which the Catholic Church disapproves of.
Not necessarily “good”, but it could be something that needs to be done to avoid an even greater evil. The world is not black and white, there are all sorts of grey shades in it.
I agree with you to an extent, but some things are just completely wrong.
I actually think Faith is a belief due to evidence. I mean, i believe in a god because i just don’t have any examples as to how language, order, and systems can occur with a mind. The universe has these 3 things… everything is governed by the laws, we are able to read the universe through numbers, the solar systems behavior some how connect to a beneficial way for the earth to continue having life… etc. If someone tells me that god is false because of no evidence, then i would need a reason to jump to their side… how can i come to the conclusion that a maker does not exist when i have not seen language, order, or systems happen out unintentionally.