An athiest world = a better world.
- Thread starter answers
- Start date
I see... but that is obvious if you don't believe in sin you won't believe in being a sinner.... so whats the point of asking this? I mean its kind of like asking me to state the obvious.
Peace be unto you
This is where 786 has to admit he trying to give me his sin. Passing it along like a plague. He's saying take it and I'm saying no I don't believe it.
Huh? Quite clearly you don't understand what I was talking about... you've basically brought a totally separate subject when I was talking about 'sin' with respect to 'believers'.
But to answer your question... If someone believes sin exists- then it exists and by them you may be a sinner..... regardless if you believe or not because its their belief. Secondly you may not believe in sin and so there would be no such thing as a sinner regardless of someone else saying you are.... This is obvious... This is just a battle of belief- but that is obvious- I don't know why you're even asking this.
Peace be unto you
The problem with this right off the bat is the article presumes cause but has correlation, AT BEST. It is a nation level piece of anectdotal evidence. Japan is also a shame based culture which has its ass kicked devastatingly by people it considers barbarians in the fairly recent past. It has a strikingly different sense of the individual, freedom, duty and other concepts that radically affect crime and further would make pretty much any secular westerner
REALLY SQUIRMY.
They have an education system that is totalitarian, demeaning - by many of our standards, and systematically denies children agency on a level, well, we keep choosing not to do 'over here.'
But somehow it is clear that atheism is the reason they get along well.
This does not pass basic science protocols
something I am sure the learned and law-abiding japanese would probably pass on to interested Westerner lumping so many fallacious assumptions in one place.
Of course this silliness was a response to silliness on the part of theists. I do think societies can be some kind of moral without God.
More like demon possession!
'sin' with respect to 'believers'.
But to answer your question... If someone believes sin exists- then it exists and by them you may be a sinner..... regardless if you believe or not because its their belief. Secondly you may not believe in sin and so there would be no such thing as a sinner regardless of someone else saying you are.... This is obvious... This is just a battle of belief- but that is obvious- I don't know why you're even asking this.
Peace be unto you
Your belief in sin doesn't make me or anyone a sinner, factually.
Now that we have this sin issue cleared up. I'm done.
Lol... I never even brought up this subject. I was simply explaining relationship of sin and believer.
You just stepped in with an out-of-blue question.
Peace be unto you
ha! how could i have overlooked this? massively damaged amygdala--perhaps i am one of the most "rational" individuals around here!
Last edited:
So when you personally sin, 786, you temporarily become an atheist?
well, one of MANY problems here.
how is it that everyone seems to be completely overlooking the criterion by which "better" has been defined here?
there are many nations in which abominable practices are not considered "crimes": does it really suggest much to claim that they are comparatively "crime-free"?
this entire thread is but a succession of the ill-defined, anecdotal, correlation-causation fallacies, etc.--where has all the science gone?
No a complete atheist, but still more atheist than theist. So in that relative scale yes..
Peace be unto you
What's an incomplete atheist?
I feel like if there is a grading scale for how atheist someone is there should be a test too.
Complete lack of belief in god is an atheist-
Sufficient lack of belief in god is a 'incomplete atheist'.
You can imagine me making a scale... from 'atheist' to 'theist' - you know like pH scale acid to base...
Sin is a moment where you are more 'atheist' than 'theist'- If you notice I'm creating a gradient of 'belief' not simply making two labels- (atheist or theist)- because I believe 'belief' has gradient like features.
Peace be unto you
Ah, you don't know the rule:
The Romans do not need to treat barbarians like citizens. One rule at home - at least, maybe there's rule at home.
Belief is subjective so you can't make such a test (or at least a meaningful one)... Only thing you can look at is action- but actions really don't have a 'gradient' if only looking in terms of 'sin' or 'no sin'- So 'sin' becomes that 'stepping stone' into the 'other side'--- (sounds so cool?)
Peace be unto you
Belief is subjective so you can't make such a test (or at least a meaningful one)... Only thing you can look at is action- but actions really don't have a 'gradient' if only looking in terms of 'sin' or 'no sin'- So 'sin' becomes that 'stepping stone' into the 'other side'--- (sounds so cool?)
Peace be unto you
I was being sarcastic, I guess I should have put a
there.