Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by John J. Bannan, Jul 5, 2007.
yes just like adam and eve, animals, babies.
time to think, isn't it.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
what?? Is that your personal belief?? Water on the head makes you sin less? I've never been baptized and I know I've sinned a hell of a lot less than a whole slew of priests.
Infants cannot commit a crime. This was proved in the Simpsons "Who shot Mr Burns?" where the culprit turned out to be baby Maggie. Mr Burns wanted her arrested but officer Wiggum refused, saying that no jury would ever convict an infant, no jury outside of Texas anyway.......
Just because someone decides not to arrest someone for the crime, does NOT mean that they didn't commit said crime!
And I must warn you, ....committing a sin is not the same thing as committing a crime.
Baron Max, I totally agree with you. If the traffic lights are permanently stuck on red due to a malfunction, then if I go through that red light after carefully checking that there is no danger, then I am commiting a legal offence, but not a sin.
You might need to guess again. Fortunantly guessing is what science does best.
... :bugeye: You're on crack right?
As for "spirit".. http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/mind.html
No. But your eye is twitching, have you had your dose today?
Did you read the link? Any questions, disagreements etc?
A complete side-step. Smart guy.
Its that simple ! Humans are animals, no more... probably less.
To the atheist, the concept of sin is not very meaningful; sin is generally regarded by most people as a theological concept, and atheists are by definition not followers of a theology. Non-believers may certainly regard action as being right or wrong according to their particular moral system, but they generally do not think of them as being "sinful" per se, particularly if "sinful" is taken to mean "acting against the wishes/commands of my deity."
So animals and atheists cannot sin, only religious people can.
animals can't do anything wrong because they don't know what it is. stupid humans can do wrong because they think they can.
wrong. humans are gods because they have free will.
Inaccurate. My pet dog for instance knows full well when he's doing something naughty/wrong.
The same thought occurred to me as I was reading through the thread.
This is a very pertinent point, I think. Do you think your dog feels:
C: Fear of retribution
Do you think the same feeling (whichever it is) can also occur in purely dog-to-dog interactions?
Um, people, just because you're an atheist doesn't mean you CAN'T sin.
If there is NO god, then you cannot sin.
If there is a god who has created a moral system and punishes those who deviate, then you CAN sin, whether or not you worship him. In fact, 10 to 1 NOT worshipping this god is a sin.
Also: according to Hindus, animals can sin, because they (like all living things) will be given a new body based on their actions in the animal state once they die.
There is no fundamental difference between an animal and a human because we are all animals. The only difference is gradation in intelligence. Every animal has a spirit(energy), soul(still energy), a sense of itself and a degree of will and emotions. The only difference is ours is more developed and fine-tuned. Also, to assume humans are more moral is outrageously ridiculous. Animals can be just as capable of love and other emotions as humans and humans are just as capable of being immoral. If you want to talk about innocence, they would be more accurately innocent than humans.
Animals can't commit a sin because they do not have knowledge of good and evil.
No, I didn't read the link. Time is a luxury whether you can appreciate that or not.
There are billions of web sites on the internet. I simple don't have time to read endless litanies of websites and sort through each of there information. No one has that much time. You might have been better off just listing one...or adding your recomendation to one that conveys your reasonings the best.
Refrences are good. So I thank you. However in School if I were to give my Proffessor a paper with only a website and said "read it". The result would be a failing grading.
Give me YOUR understanding of what you read to the best of your knowledge and how it applies to the conversation and then refrence the site. Not only does this convey your comprehension on the topic but it raises my curiosity aswell.
I realize you may or may not agree with this reasoning, but surely it couldn't hurt, right?
Yes, I am known for my sarcasm. Options are wonderful things. To retort or not to retort that is the question.
Well there's a surprise. *end sarcasm mode*
That's great. The relevance to the one site that I provided?
Uhh... if you're drunk you might see two links, but really I only provided one link.
Well then we can all be thankful that this isn't school.
How about you spend the 5 minutes it would take to read the site and save me the 2 hours it would take to type it all up?
Or not, whatever.
Separate names with a comma.