richardhutnik said:
First, don't presume for a minute I care about what you think or don't think, or others do. People have their own agendas responding to you like they do, for their own amusement. This is entertainment for them. In my case, because I am fairly certain you are wrong in your thinking in this area, my corresponding with this thread is practice for my part, to refine issues and thinking on these issues. As something to strengthen my resolve, it works. As an attempt to change my mind, it is an abysmal failure. Anyhow, if you want to have the purpose the thread to be something, it should be on what you want to discuss. In your case, it would be a whole lot simplier, if you would just come out with a thread in support of gay marriage. Since your agenda for abolishing sin is to clear the way for gay marriage to be ok for everyone, it would be just plain easier to just do a thread on that. When you don't get close to your original subject, and go WAY out there in the realm of metapbysics, or now the case of ethics, you will get a many paged thread that won't get to what you want to talk about. But, if you want to do something on sin in general, well, let's look at your view there is no sin: * Sin, by definition, is a violation of standard set by a certain code of conduct or ethics, that transcends personal preference or and desires, or arbitrarily determined sets of laws. * If you argue there is no sin, then you argue for a case of there being no set of standards that is a universal set of rights and responsibilities. In short, you have reduced ethics and morals to nothing more than just personal preferences, either by a person of power and influence, or voted on by the greatest number in a crowd. * By reducing ethics to personal preferences, you cannot argue that people have rights. Without standards that are above and beyond humans, then everything is preferences, either by elites who have power, or the masses. * If, for example, a community finds homosexuality icky, they have the ability, becasue ethics is nothing more than personal preference, to block individuals from being couples in their area. They can also chose to kill anyone they like and disagree with, and come up with laws to support this view. In short, anything goes. * Oh, you can argue, "But, one can use reason to show the right way". Since you have reduced ethics to nothing more than personal preference then reason is nothing more than a personal preference as an approach for determining what one prefers. So, there you go. No sin, and you end up having no basis for arguing for gay marriage, which is your intention anyhow. Because, just because you get rid of God and sin doesn't mean you end up getting your agenda met. As can be seen, Marx wasn't supportive of homosexuality, and you have nothing to be able to argue in support of your agenda. Freed of a set of standards that can be appealed to, you have nothing to argue for the moral high ground. |
What you completely fail to keep in mind is that all atheists believe that there are no sins, making your entire argument fall like a rock. Do atheists consider a society without morals and laws to be the optimal society? No.
Sins are nothing but a couple of bullshit rules with no scientific basis. Laws (in a developed society), on the other hand, always have a reson which is to protect their people and to give all them equal rights, unlike the religious laws where gays are condemned. Sure, some (if not most) laws got their inspiration from the Bible, but at least they removed the discriminating ones once science kicked in.
Let's assume for a second that we wanted the Bible and God's word to be fair, then why won't anyone rewrite the Bible and remove all the ignorant lines so that it reflect most views of today's religious people? Answer: It is the word of God, and God decided what is defined as sins. Therefore, the only way for people to understand that there are no sins is if I make them doubt that God is flawless. That is where this thread comes in.
