Atheism a sin?

[Donkey]

Is atheism a sin? I'm speaking mainly in the context of Christianity, but I'd be happy to discuss other religions as well.

I was discussing this with Margot last night. She was busting out Bible verses, and I was quibbling. The way I see it: actively denying the existence of God is most definitely a sin in Christianity, but is the mere lack of belief in God is perhaps not?

Definitely such an individual (in Christianity), would be living in a state of sin (original sin), not being saved, but also perhaps not actively sinning?

I guess the question is whether passive inaction is sinful.

[Zarquon]

Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Its quite clear that they condemn strong atheism, as for a lack of belief, that's probably not considered a virtue either.
Why does it matter?

[Michael]

Is atheism a sin? I'm speaking mainly in the context of Christianity, but I'd be happy to discuss other religions as well.

I was discussing this with Margot last night. She was busting out Bible verses, and I was quibbling. The way I see it: actively denying the existence of God is most definitely a sin in Christianity, but is the mere lack of belief in God is perhaps not?

Definitely such an individual (in Christianity), would be living in a state of sin (original sin), not being saved, but also perhaps not actively sinning?

I guess the question is whether passive inaction is sinful.
Historically speaking, "atheism" was a term of abuse created by mainstream Christians to apply to anyone who doesn't fully support special status for the institutional Church - or who is critical of any aspect of the affairs of the Church. Historically speaking, most people accused of atheism were in fact Christians.

As such, most good Christians at this forum are "atheists" by that terminology.

[Non Sequitur]

Is atheism a sin? I'm speaking mainly in the context of Christianity, but I'd be happy to discuss other religions as well.

I was discussing this with Margot last night. She was busting out Bible verses, and I was quibbling. The way I see it: actively denying the existence of God is most definitely a sin in Christianity, but is the mere lack of belief in God is perhaps not?

Definitely such an individual (in Christianity), would be living in a state of sin (original sin), not being saved, but also perhaps not actively sinning?

I guess the question is whether passive inaction is sinful.

C.S. Lewis makes a couple distinctions that are quite useful here. First, he says that the person who simply has had no exposure to genuine religious belief cannot be blamed for his atheism. Second, the person who has really considered all the alternatives, and is not hostile to religious beliefs, but through honest investigation and honest opinion cannot actually come to belief can't really be blamed either because God did give us the gift of reason. Now the key word there was "honest." Many people come to atheism, not through honest investigation, but through personal bias, bad experiences with one variant of Christianity, or through downright laziness (just not putting in the time to explore the issue). These people are committing not just one sin, but multiple because again, God gave us reason.

hope that helps. I'm not sure I buy it myself, but it is a good distinction none the less. The traditional answer is just plain yes. John Calvin would say yes because all people have "a sense of the divine" and so atheism is just downright rejection. Luther would also say yes because atheists reject the clear signs in nature that God exists.

[dilettante]

Is atheism a sin? I'm speaking mainly in the context of Christianity, but I'd be happy to discuss other religions as well.

I was discussing this with Margot last night. She was busting out Bible verses, and I was quibbling. The way I see it: actively denying the existence of God is most definitely a sin in Christianity, but is the mere lack of belief in God is perhaps not?

Definitely such an individual (in Christianity), would be living in a state of sin (original sin), not being saved, but also perhaps not actively sinning?

I guess the question is whether passive inaction is sinful.

That's an interesting question.
I'm sure I'm not a good representative of the church universal here, but speaking as an individual Christian, I hold that 'sin' is primarily a matter of the heart, rather than the mind or the body. That's one of the lessons I take from the gospels. To apply that to atheism, I guess I hold that neither ignorance nor poor reasoning nor sound reasoning that reaches a wrong conclusion about God is, in itself, sinful.

The core question wrt to sin, I suppose, is what one does with the concept a good and loving God. To simply find that one honestly doubts the existence of such a being is one thing (and, IMO, no sin). But to desire that there be no such thing, to hope that there is no ultimate truth, beauty or love at the core of existence...that, I think, becomes sin. Similarly, to use one's atheism as a platform from which to mock or scorn others, to take a self-satisfied joy in one's superiority over the supposedly naive and ignorant, or to undermine the faith of others simply for one's own pleasure, that too is sin. But of course, scorn, self-satisfaction, and pride are hardly exclusive to atheists; Christians know those sins all too well.

Anyway, those are my thoughts.

[Donkey]

Its quite clear that they condemn strong atheism, as for a lack of belief, that's probably not considered a virtue either. But is lack of a virtue sinful. ;)


Why does it matter?
It doesn't at all, at least to me.
Historically speaking, "atheism" was a term of abuse created by mainstream Christians to apply to anyone who doesn't fully support special status for the institutional Church - or who is critical of any aspect of the affairs of the Church. Historically speaking, most people accused of atheism were in fact Christians.

As such, most good Christians at this forum are "atheists" by that terminology.
I discussions about God that are more than just casual, I tend to avoid the term atheist, just because it is an abused/misused term.
C.S. Lewis makes a couple distinctions that are quite useful here. First, he says that the person who simply has had no exposure to genuine religious belief cannot be blamed for his atheism. Second, the person who has really considered all the alternatives, and is not hostile to religious beliefs, but through honest investigation and honest opinion cannot actually come to belief can't really be blamed either because God did give us the gift of reason. Now the key word there was "honest." Many people come to atheism, not through honest investigation, but through personal bias, bad experiences with one variant of Christianity, or through downright laziness (just not putting in the time to explore the issue). These people are committing not just one sin, but multiple because again, God gave us reason.

hope that helps. I'm not sure I buy it myself, but it is a good distinction none the less. The traditional answer is just plain yes. John Calvin would say yes because all people have "a sense of the divine" and so atheism is just downright rejection. Luther would also say yes because atheists reject the clear signs in nature that God exists.
Interesting. I don't really have anything to say in response, but I did enjoy this post.

Also I enjoyed Dilettante's, I just didn't quote it.

[Lasher]

Is atheism a sin? I'm speaking mainly in the context of Christianity, but I'd be happy to discuss other religions as well.

I was discussing this with Margot last night. She was busting out Bible verses, and I was quibbling. The way I see it: actively denying the existence of God is most definitely a sin in Christianity, but is the mere lack of belief in God is perhaps not?

Definitely such an individual (in Christianity), would be living in a state of sin (original sin), not being saved, but also perhaps not actively sinning?

I guess the question is whether passive inaction is sinful.
It's a sin to tell a lie.

[Lasher]

C.S. Lewis makes a couple distinctions that are quite useful here. First, he says that the person who simply has had no exposure to genuine religious belief cannot be blamed for his atheism. Second, the person who has really considered all the alternatives, and is not hostile to religious beliefs, but through honest investigation and honest opinion cannot actually come to belief can't really be blamed either because God did give us the gift of reason. Now the key word there was "honest." Many people come to atheism, not through honest investigation, but through personal bias, bad experiences with one variant of Christianity, or through downright laziness (just not putting in the time to explore the issue). These people are committing not just one sin, but multiple because again, God gave us reason.

hope that helps. I'm not sure I buy it myself, but it is a good distinction none the less. The traditional answer is just plain yes. John Calvin would say yes because all people have "a sense of the divine" and so atheism is just downright rejection. Luther would also say yes because atheists reject the clear signs in nature that God exists.
Did Lasher hear you state unequivocally that "God" exists?" If so, maybe you can answer this question: A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

[Lasher]

That's an interesting question.
I'm sure I'm not a good representative of the church universal here, but speaking as an individual Christian, I hold that 'sin' is primarily a matter of the heart, rather than the mind or the body. That's one of the lessons I take from the gospels. To apply that to atheism, I guess I hold that neither ignorance nor poor reasoning nor sound reasoning that reaches a wrong conclusion about God is, in itself, sinful.

The core question wrt to sin, I suppose, is what one does with the concept a good and loving God. To simply find that one honestly doubts the existence of such a being is one thing (and, IMO, no sin). But to desire that there be no such thing, to hope that there is no ultimate truth, beauty or love at the core of existence...that, I think, becomes sin. Similarly, to use one's atheism as a platform from which to mock or scorn others, to take a self-satisfied joy in one's superiority over the supposedly naive and ignorant, or to undermine the faith of others simply for one's own pleasure, that too is sin. But of course, scorn, self-satisfaction, and pride are hardly exclusive to atheists; Christians know those sins all too well.

Anyway, those are my thoughts.
At the risk of being branded a sinful, lost soul, Lash would like to ask if you know about Lev. 21:20, which states that Lash may not approach the altar of God if He has a defect in His sight. Lash has to admit to wearing reading glasses. Does His vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room there?

[Donkey]

It's a sin to tell a lie.
So you would say that passive atheism is the same as active atheism?
Did Lasher hear you state unequivocally that "God" exists?" If so, maybe you can answer this question: A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

At the risk of being branded a sinful, lost soul, Lash would like to ask if you know about Lev. 21:20, which states that Lash may not approach the altar of God if He has a defect in His sight. Lash has to admit to wearing reading glasses. Does His vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room there?
Neither of these verses are salient to the thread. If you want to discuss these verses please start your own thread.

[Non Sequitur]

Did Lasher hear you state unequivocally that "God" exists?" If so, maybe you can answer this question: A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Yes, I firmly believe that God exists. As for the shellfish question, I believe we have had this discussion on another thread and I said it depends on if you subscribe to a certain mode of Biblical interpretation called Biblical literalism. As I also said, I do not subscribe to this belief.

On a side note, This passage would apply if you were an Israelite. Since I doubt that you are, don't worry about it. Also, Typical Christian theology states that the old covenant was fulfilled by Christ's death and resurrection so don't worry about it.

[Lasher]

So you would say that passive atheism is the same as active atheism?



Neither of these verses are salient to the thread. If you want to discuss these verses please start your own thread.
Thank you for your concern, my friend, but Lasher was thinking that the Bible and its content are, indeed "salient" ("germane" would a less ostentatious, and more fitting word) to this thread, but you are the arbiter of what content is appropriate to your little thread, Dunkey. You seem to really have a grudge against Lasher for some reason; do you mind saying what the problem is?

[Lasher]

Yes, I firmly believe that God exists. As for the shellfish question, I believe we have had this discussion on another thread and I said it depends on if you subscribe to a certain mode of Biblical interpretation called Biblical literalism. As I also said, I do not subscribe to this belief.

On a side note, This passage would apply if you were an Israelite. Since I doubt that you are, don't worry about it. Also, Typical Christian theology states that the old covenant was fulfilled by Christ's death and resurrection so don't worry about it.
Thank you for your advice, my friend; Lasher will immediately cease to worry about it.

P.S. Lash would also like to know if the Bible and its teachings only apply to those of the Hebrew culture.

[Donkey]

Thank you for your concern, my friend, but Lasher was thinking that the Bible and its content are, indeed "salient" ("germane" would a less ostentatious, and more fitting word) to this thread, but you are the arbiter of what content is appropriate to your little thread, Dunkey. You seem to really have a grudge against Lasher for some reason; do you mind saying what the problem is?
You're welcome to demonstrate how your posts pertain to whether or not atheism is a sin.

[Lasher]

You're welcome to demonstrate how your posts pertain to whether or not atheism is a sin.
Oh, my! Sorry I posted anything outside the narrow confines of your topic! Mea maxima culpa. Lash will endeavor to abide by the rules (which He admittedly failed to peruse in their entirety) in the future, but please forgive Him if there is an occasional faux pas, as Lash is quite old and hasn't the acuity He once had. Thank you for your tolerance.

[Non Sequitur]

P.S. Lash would also like to know if the Bible and its teachings only apply to those of the Hebrew culture.

I would answer, but it requires a new Thread so i am going to start one entitled Law and Gospel so we can sort out this question.

[Donkey]

Oh, my! Sorry I posted anything outside the narrow confines of your topic! Mea maxima culpa. Lash will endeavor to abide by the rules (which He admittedly failed to peruse in their entirety) in the future, but please forgive Him if there is an occasional faux pas, as Lash is quite old and hasn't the acuity He once had. Thank you for your tolerance.
I truly appreciate your considerateness.

[Lasher]

I truly appreciate your considerateness.
You are a gentleman and a scholar.

[Donkey]

You are a gentleman and a scholar.
I am aware.

[Lasher]

I am aware.
As is, in all probability, the whole population of this forum, my friend.

[Michael]

It's a sin to tell a lie.

It is a sin to be born at all. :shrug:

[Americano]

At the risk of being branded a sinful, lost soul, Lash would like to ask if you know about Lev. 21:20, which states that Lash may not approach the altar of God if He has a defect in His sight. Lash has to admit to wearing reading glasses. Does His vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room there?

Get your eyes fixed. It's inexpensive and will save you the embarrassment of claiming to be an atheist while requesting biblical interpretations.

[dannydesiliva]

I grew up in a very religious (not necessarily spiritual) household, and I was constantly reminded all my life that "sin" would destroy me in hell. Now I think that mentality is very limiting, but it seems as if you believe in God and the bible, you must believe in sin (or else you'll burn in hell).

How do atheists define sin?

How do you define or measure things like pre-marital sex, lying to your boss, not giving 10% of your paycheck to church, etc.?

[Donkey]

I grew up in a very religious (not necessarily spiritual) household, and I was constantly reminded all my life that "sin" would destroy me in hell. Now I think that mentality is very limiting, but it seems as if you believe in God and the bible, you must believe in sin (or else you'll burn in hell).

How do atheists define sin?

How do you define or measure things like pre-marital sex, lying to your boss, not giving 10% of your paycheck to church, etc.?

I guess sin is sort of meaningless without religion, but since I grew up religious it is inextricably part of my vocabulary.

I use sin to describe anything that I feel morally wrong. Usually I use it for emphasis. I consider not clearing my plate a sin.

But in the context of this thread, I use it in the Christian context.

[The Drunk Guy]

I guess sin is sort of meaningless without religion, but since I grew up religious it is inextricably part of my vocabulary.

I use sin to describe anything that I feel morally wrong. Usually I use it for emphasis. I consider not clearing my plate a sin.

But in the context of this thread, I use it in the Christian context.
I use the word only in reference to the laws of Christianity, whether in serious discussion with Christians or making a silly joke with friends.

Recently, I've been trying to define how I judge actions of others and such. Surprisingly, I feel comfortable judging most actions right along with the law; sure, they fucked up, but they're still people.

[Donkey]

Oh I also use it as a joke, of course.

[Michael]

How do atheists define sin?
Sin is predicated upon a definition supplied by God.

If one rejects God, sin goes out the window. Ergo, atheists don't define sin at all and likely pay no attention to the concept.

[SMadsen]

Get your eyes fixed. It's inexpensive and will save you the embarrassment of claiming to be an atheist while requesting biblical interpretations.
May one not require interpretations of the poetry in Rig Veda without being a Hindu? May one not require interpretations of the American Constitution without being an American citizen? May one not require interpretations of "Mein Kampf" without being a Nazi?

Lack of X does not entail a lack of interest in X. Nor does it entail a lack of right to critize X, whether it's done with constructive criticism or, as clearly was the case here, criticism of a more sarcastic nature.

[SMadsen]

Sin is predicated upon a definition supplied by God.

If one rejects God, sin goes out the window. Ergo, atheists don't define sin at all and likely pay no attention to the concept.
Indeed. Sin does not matter to the atheist.

Like with any other ideology, though, an individual may take an interest in it or even be more or less forced to pay attention to it. Neither means that the atheist is "embarrassingly" investing any kind of personal faith in the matter.

PS. The latter doesn't pertain to the quote above. I'm just tired of hearing that a person either can't escape sensus divinitatus (which is a great concept for religious people to avoid conflicts among themselves due to disagreeing doctrines but is really nothing more than apologetics) or is some kind of discontent believer in the faith that the person happens to discuss :)

[Michael]

Sensus divinitis = god-like hole in the brain? :lol:

I'd be curious to know how this "god-like hole in the brain" knows whether or not that god-like shape needs to have eight arms or just two for the particular social-cultural context of each individual?

[SMadsen]

More like a god-filled hole in the brain.

[Michael]

More like a god-filled hole in the brain.


But the god-shaped hole has to be there when you are born for it to be filled.

How come that God-shaped hole is always made in the correct cultural-relative shape of God?

People born in India are born with an 'eight-armed' God-shaped hole but people born in USA have a 'two-armed' God-shaped hole? :shrug:

[SMadsen]

But the god-shaped hole has to be there when you are born for it to be filled.

How come that God-shaped hole is always made in the correct cultural-relative shape of God?

People born in India are born with an 'eight-armed' God-shaped hole but people born in USA have a 'two-armed' God-shaped hole? :shrug:
Perhaps the fetus grows around the sensus divinitatis core, leaving a god-filled hole?

Anyhow, I think the number of divine appendices is irrelevant to the sensus divinitatis core (leaving room, even, although reluctantly and perhaps sometimes only in spite, for spaghetti-like appendices!).

[Michael]

Anyhow, I think the number of divine appendices is irrelevant to the sensus divinitatis core (leaving room, even, although reluctantly and perhaps sometimes only in spite, for spaghetti-like appendices!).

Excellent wit! :hatoff:

[Greendruid]

Perhaps the fetus grows around the sensus divinitatis core, leaving a god-filled hole?

Anyhow, I think the number of divine appendices is irrelevant to the sensus divinitatis core (leaving room, even, although reluctantly and perhaps sometimes only in spite, for spaghetti-like appendices!).

Long-live the Flying Spaghetti Monster! May his noodly appendage reward you for your acknowledgement of his existence!

[Non Sequitur]

Perhaps the fetus grows around the sensus divinitatis core, leaving a god-filled hole?

Anyhow, I think the number of divine appendices is irrelevant to the sensus divinitatis core (leaving room, even, although reluctantly and perhaps sometimes only in spite, for spaghetti-like appendices!).

Think you got the idea little wrong here. Calvin describes the sense of the divine as just that, a sense of the of the divine. It is a feeling (maybe urge is the better word) of God in our lives that leads to a restlessness when the wrong thing is focused on. Luther describes this as the human tendency to devout oneself to something (whether that be money, power, family, job, etc...). A quote is useful from Augustine's Confession is useful here: "Our hearts are restless until they find rest in thee oh Lord." The sense of the divine leads to a restlessness, but is not the restlessness itself.

And technically Calvin writes that this feeling can not be ignored, but it can be drowned out. Just like someone shouting at you can be drowned out by lots of other noise.

[SMadsen]

Think you got the idea little wrong here.
I hope so ;)

Calvin describes the sense of the divine as just that, a sense of the of the divine. It is a feeling (maybe urge is the better word) of God in our lives that leads to a restlessness when the wrong thing is focused on. Luther describes this as the human tendency to devout oneself to something (whether that be money, power, family, job, etc...). A quote is useful from Augustine's Confession is useful here: "Our hearts are restless until they find rest in thee oh Lord." The sense of the divine leads to a restlessness, but is not the restlessness itself.

And technically Calvin writes that this feeling can not be ignored, but it can be drowned out. Just like someone shouting at you can be drowned out by lots of other noise.
Well, there exist others and, in my opinion, far more rational explanations (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg) for the urge that Calvin coined back in the 16th century.

[Non Sequitur]

[SIZE=2]Well, there exist others and, in my opinion, far more rational explanations (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg) for the urge that Calvin coined back in the 16th century.


I will fully admit that there are more rational explanations, but that does not automatically mean they are the right ones :D

[SMadsen]

I will fully admit that there are more rational explanations, but that does not automatically mean they are the right ones :D
Naturally.

In fact, if you watched the video, you'll probably find that it's far more complex than both Calvin's, Luther's and Augustine's thoughts on the subject. However, given the set of issues raised by the premise, i.e., the existence of gods and supernatural realms, it is in reality ultimately more simple and will at any time pass Ockham's razor with flying colors.

I can recommend Andy Thomson's presentation to everyone. It takes a while to watch but it can give a hint as to where the often underestimated but always present desire to understand human predisposition for religious belief might be focusing.

[SMadsen]

Long-live the Flying Spaghetti Monster! May his noodly appendage reward you for your acknowledgement of his existence!
Praise His doughy goodness and meaty wisdom!