Instigator / Con
0
1442
rating
47
debates
55.32%
won
Topic
#5853
Does sin exist in this world?
Status
Voting
The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
Voting will end in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
0
1439
rating
9
debates
27.78%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Thank you Pro for accepting the debate.
FIRST ARGUMENT:
Sin is a concept that goes hand and hand with the objective moral framework of defining bad deeds. As with any moral framework that claims to work in any universal capacity, the problem comes with actually proving it exists. I ask anyone reading to offer me a single universally accepted act that is defined as a "sin." Sure, you can offer me plenty of belief systems that will happily classify many actions as sins, but that is not sufficient. Universal claims require absolute evidence beyond doubt. If Sin cannot be established in an identifiably objective basis, it cannot exist in a factual manner. Therefore, sin does not exist.
SECOND ARGUMENT:
In order to determine if something is real, it must be proved to physically exist. With that in mind, I challenge my opponent to offer such evidence in this debate. We all know that the scientific method of understanding requires the following: Observation, theorization, and testing the hypothesis to support the conclusion. If pro cannot do so, then we can safety say that sin exists only in the minds of those who believe in it. Thus, Sin does not actually exist but is a concept that people themselves have made up.
THIRD ARGUMENT:
Idea's like sin exist only in theology. While there may be more people who believe in divine concepts then those who do not, the appeal of the majority doesn't determine truth. Absolutely nothing in religion is factual for it is based entirely on faith. Faith itself requires a lack of facts in order to work. Therefore, the act of believing in sin is an act of faith itself. We cannot say we know something is real, and then say we have faith at the same time. We either know or we don't know.
CONCLUSION:
There is no such thing as sin in this world. For sin to be real, universal morality would have to be true. There would also be a scientific process to demonstrate the physical existence of sin. Since neither can be verified, there is no possibility for sin to exist. Additionally, the idea of sin is found exclusively within superstitious circles rather then anything academic. There is simply no reason to believe sin is real from a critical perspective.
Right then,
FIRST ARGUMENT:
I argue for 'Sin as a word meaning "Missing the Mark"
A failing to accomplish an ideal,
I do not argue that the Sin of X is universal, I argue that the action of missing one's 'Ideal, whatever it may be. Is a univeral.
Therefore Sin exists, as much as 'Throwing exists, I do not need to state a universal Sin, For one group might consider Greed a Sin, another group consider Altruism a Sin,
What matters I argue, is that Sin exists as a concept of "Missing the Mark" of whatever morality or ethics some individual or group aims for.
"Judaism teaches that sin is a part of life, since there is no perfect man and everyone has an inclination to do evil. Sin has many classifications and degrees, but the principal classification is that of "missing the mark" (cheit in Hebrew)."
"The Shinto concept of sin is inexorably linked to concepts of purity and pollution. Shinto does not have a concept of original sin and instead believes that all human beings are born pure.[38] Sin, also called Tsumi, is anything that makes people impure (i.e. anything that separates them from the kami)."
"In a religious context, sin is an act of transgression against divine or natural law."
In Meso-American civilisation, Tlazolteotl, the Aztec goddess of vice, purification, steam baths, lust and filth, and a patroness of adulterers (her name literally means 'Sacred Filth'), had a redemptive role in religious practices. At the end of an individual's life, they were allowed to confess misdeeds to this deity, and according to legend she would cleanse the soul by "eating its filth".
Even in Anton LaVey Satanism, one can find 'Sins
"LaVey was an atheist who rejected the existence of all gods,[46] of any afterlife,[47] and of Satan as an entity who literally exists.[36] The use of Satan as a central figure was intentionally symbolic.[48] LaVey sought to cement his belief system within the secularist world-view that derived from natural science, thus providing him with an atheistic basis with which to legitimized his religion"
"Similarly, the Stoics divide vice into foolishness, injustice, cowardice, intemperance, and the rest."
SECOND ARGUMENT:
Concepts describe reality,
Concepts additionally exist as electrons within our brain,
How could something that does not 'exist move us?
How could something nonexistent do 'anything?
Wind describes the action of moving wind,
How absurd would it be for someone to state they do not believe in the existence of a tornado,
Would their lack of belief save them from it's furious winds?
THIRD ARGUMENT:
I am unsure what you mean by Sin only existing in theology or it's existence requiring faith.
The definition of Sin I have used, allows use even by an Atheist such as LaVey.
The definition of Sin I have used, describes an action, a mechanism within morality and ethics.
CONCLUSION:
There is such a thing as sin in this world. For sin describes a universal mechanism within morality.
Round 2
Opening: My opponent has tried to redefine the word "Sin" to make a counter argument against the points I have raised. However, it is important to note that the word sin does NOT stand for "Missing the mark" it actually means to engage in an act that goes against religious law. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sin
My opponent's own arguments work against themselves.
REBUTTAL 1: Standards for Sin.
Pro has made the argument that Sin is not about bad actions like lying or stealing but failing to meet up to your own or a group's standards. Not only does that go against the very definition of the idea of Sin as a word, but many faiths such as Christianity and Islam very much disagree with this idea and do very much assonate Theft and lying with sin and a bad actions. Pro cannot take words and redefine them with subjective definitions and argue that their understanding is universal. Thus their definition of sin remains just as subjective as the original and is therefore not real.
Not only that, but to define sin to be as something so small as to not meet your or other people standards is a ridiculously low bar. This would mean that you are sinful because you tell your best friend that you can't meet up for a golfing trip because your wife is about to give birth since that would fail to meet up to your friends expectations. Even the most fanatical of believers would agree such a claim borders on unrealistic standards.
REBUTTAL 2: Contradictory statements.
Pro claimed that Sin was not an action but, "missing the mark." However, they said it themselves in their own argument that in Judaism that sin is viewed as an every day part of life because no one is perfect and that everyone can do evil. So, in the beginning, Pro is arguing that Sin is not about actions, but rather failing to achieve subjective standards. Now, they go against that by providing sources to belief systems that clearly define sin as bad behavior. My opponent needs to make up their mind.
Either sin is defined as bad behavior and therefore supported by the original definition, or its not about action but failing to achieve goals. If they argue the former, they are going by completely subjective understanding of sin. Thus, their argument comes from a place of personal opinion and not science or academics. And if they argue for the latter, then the first half of their argument fails completely as they are going against a definition they both discard and use. In either case, they have yet to establish that sin exists.
While I agree with my opponent that differing religions have concepts of sin, that works against their argument because the whole point of their argument is redefine Sin as failing to achieve ideals rather than behavior. They also try to claim that atheism has concepts of Sin by using the example of Anton LaVey. However, Anton Levey does not represent Atheism and his ideologies were very much in league with Satanism. So, Sin is actually found in atheism.
REBUTTAL 3: Concept VS Reality
My opponent argues that concepts describe reality and uses elections and asks how concepts that do not exist "move" us. However, what pro does not understand is that just because something can be virtualized as a concept even if it causes you to have emotions does not mean it is real. I can visualize a dog named Spot, and I can claim he has golden fur and likes to run around all day. But, does Spot actually exist? No, he is just a concept I made up. I can also conceptualize the concept of seeing a dead dog and being very sad, however, that does not mean there's actually a dead dog.
The same argument is with sin. We can all virtualize a behavior we deem unacceptable. We can further accuse those who know of doing the deed to be sinners. Nevertheless, it does not mean that what someone does is ACTUALLY a sin just because we disapprove. Unlike sin, electrons are more than concepts thought of in the brain. They are physical objects that exist. The same cannot be said for the notion of sin. That ideology exists only in the mind.
How absurd would it be for someone to state they do not believe in the existence of a tornado,
Pretty absurd indeed considering that a tornado is a physical phenomenon that can clearly be observed. However, where can we see sin? What's it shape or unit of measurement? If Pro cannot give me a physical comparison, they can not argue that tornados are equal to that of sin.
I am unsure what you mean by Sin only existing in theology or it's existence requiring faith. The definition of Sin I have used, allows use even by an Atheist such as LaVey. The definition of Sin I have used, describes an action, a mechanism within morality and ethic
No, you gave a bunch of different definitions in addition to your own subjective one. Naturally, they all contradict. You also didn't give a definition for an atheist to use. You listed a wkipida link that claimed that LaVey was an atheist and satanists that rejected all forms of God or the existence of the devil and used his atheistic philosophy to mix well with secularist mindsets. Nothing about sin.
CONCLUSION:
Pro has still failed to establish sin exists. All they did was attempt to redefine what sin is to their own subjective standards. Even in that area they contradict themselves by first denying that sin is about bad actions and then offering multiple sources that clearly define sin as an action that goes against religious moral law. They have provided no basis to justify the existence of sin. Pro needs to decide if they are going to stand by their original definition of "missing the mark." If so, then the other definitions do not matter and work against their argument.
Opening:
I do not recall my opponent defining Sin in the description or in their round 1.
Nor do I find my own definition or sources lacking. Rather they match well with the source that Pro themself has provided late in round 2.
"b: an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible
c: an often serious shortcoming : fault"
A fault in tennis is to miss one's target.
Even their definition of
"a: an offense against religious or moral law"
Does not undercut my arguments.
How does one offend religious or moral law?
By not 'following it, by 'missing it, I argue.
Regardless of the concept one holds as 'Right, to sin, is to not do Right, Evil is the absence of good.
REBUTTAL 1: Standards for Sin.
When the opportunity for theft presents itself.
To a person who holds high others, stealing is a sin,
To a person who holds low others, not stealing is a sin.
Sin is simply description of a Wrong, of a failing to follow what is Right.
I have redefined nothing, for Pro 'offered no definition in the description or round 1.
I have used the definitions of others to describe what Sin is.
Sin exists in many cultures, while people may disagree on what they are aiming for, they agree on the 'definition of Sin. As can be seen by my examples in round 1, From Japan and the Aztecs to the Abrahamic Religions, people have the word Sin.
Another source
"The Hebrew word khata’ is most commonly translated as “sin.” Khata’ means “to fail” or “to miss the goal,” and the word is not always about morality."
I am using a 'common definition of the word Sin, not 'inventing it myself in the midst of this debate.
Is this debate on whether there is a single agreement held worldwide on what Evil is?
Or is it whether 'Sin "missing the Mark" exists in this world?
Which it 'does I assert, as much as tossing a ball or the wind exists in this world.
REBUTTAL 2: Contradictory statements.
I do not see the contradiction,
If I try to pour a glass of water, but miss, I did not preform the action,
Yet by my missing, do I not also pour water on the table? An action?
There is no contradiction.
Sin exists in many cultures, while people may disagree on what they are aiming for, they agree on the 'definition of Sin. As can be seen by my examples in round 1, From Japan and the Aztecs to the Abrahamic Religions, people have the word Sin.
"They also try to claim that atheism has concepts of Sin"
"So, Sin is actually found in atheism. "
I am confused, does Pro not 'agree with me here that Sin can be found in Atheism?
While I agree Anton LaVay does not represent Atheism,
As Jesus does not represent Theism,
They are terms too broad,
But my point by example, is everyone has standards. People have ideals of what is right, what to aim for. Everyone. Which is why the idea of Sin can exist even in Atheism.
What I 'think my opponent is trying to argue, is that there is a single Objective idea of Evil.
But that is not the debate, the debate is on the existence of Sin in this world, and by my definition AND Pros own source, Sin has a common definition of missing the mark.
Hence why Christians, Aztecs, Shintoists, can all communicate with one another on the existence of Sin.
REBUTTAL 3: Concept VS Reality
The mental effects of Spot being dead are certainly real.
The electrons that form up the idea in your brain are certainly real,
If I knock you in the head with a hammer, I physically knock Spot as well.
My opponent says "We can all virtualize a behavior"
Does the behavior 'not exist?
The concept of Sin does not come from our head, but from a 'real 'physical world action.
Arguably what someone else does 'Is a Sin, if it misses the mark of our Ideology.
Their action exists, and it must be 'something.
My tornado example in context, is referring to electrons and ideas,
Unless my opponent is suggesting that ideas have no physical origin?
I argue that electrons are within our brains, are stored there, are physically added to and taken from.
I argue further that they 'Move Us, our bodies are not lifeless stone statues, they are living ideas and concepts.
Though I do remind the reader that I argue Sin to be both concept and something 'real described.
. . .
My definitions might have different Ideals,
But in all of them the definition of missing the mark, again not mine, rather an ancient definition going back years, Hebrew,
That can be seen in other definitions of Sin as something wrong.
I included '2 sources on Anton LaVay. one of which was,
Which gives a list of sins in an Atheistic Organization.
I see no need for myself to use a different definition,
Failing to hit one's ideal, one's target is bad.
By definition, one's Ideal is something one wants to achieve.
If Pro meant something different by whether Sin existed,
Would they not have been better off creating a debate that claimed Objective Morality does not exist?
But no, they create a debate arguing against the existence of Sin,
Sin which by a common understanding, I argue can be viewed as missing the mark.
If it were not so, how could separate cultures both create the concept of Sin before meeting,
And after meeting, how could it be communicated?
It can be commonly created and communicated, because it is something shared, an understanding that in their separate Religions, they 'Sin by missing the mark of their ideals.
Round 3
For some unknown reason, my opponent seems to be copying my bolden titles. Its fine, I just find that weird as all.
I do not recall my opponent defining Sin in the description or in their round 1. Nor do I find my own definition or sources lacking. Rather they match well with the source that Pro themself has provided late in round 2.
First of all, the term "sin" has its own definition. It is not a term that has multiple or broad definitions. Second, my point was that you contradicted yourself. You first argued that Sin was NOT based on immoral actions like lying or stealing. THEN, you contradicted that by providing definitions that define sin as wrongful actions. You can't argue that sin is "missing the mark" and simultaneously a violation of religious authority. You either abide by the assigned definition or make up your own.
If you go by a made up definition, then your argument is dead in the water since it applies only to you. However, if you go by the traditional definition, then you have yet to prove sin is real.
When the opportunity for theft presents itself. To a person who holds high others, stealing is a sin, To a person who holds low others, not stealing is a sin
Right, so then you are admitting that Sin is subjective since it is dependent on how a person views as sin. So, then again sin is not real.
Sin is simply description of a Wrong, of a failing to follow what is Right. I have redefined nothing, for Pro 'offered no definition in the description or round 1. I have used the definitions of others to describe what Sin is.
Wait, you didn't claim in round one that, "I argue for 'Sin as a word meaning "Missing the Mark"? That sounds redefining to me since I proved the definition in Round 1 does not describe sin in that manner. Also, while I may not have given the definition of sin in the description, common sense would tell you that when I refer to a common use word, I am referring to the definition that is attached to it. The claim that sin is missing the mark is solely your definition. Not the word itself or others.
My opponent has taken a very simple debate, and used my trust of common sense to distort the debate with nonsensical arguments. I clearly set this debate to be about whether sin exists or not. Pro has decided to argue that it is real by giving multiple definitions that often contradict his understanding that he provides. Even if we ignore the fact that Pro is trying to argue sin exists by appeal of the majority via multiple definitions. They still fail to prove sin is real because their own logic makes sin subject to a persons world view.
I am not going to bather responding to tornado argument because it is irrelevant to the debate nor will I respond to their argument about spot because they are nothing more that attempted distractions from the main argument. However, I will point out yet another contradiction from my opponent. If you remember, he just made the argument that Sin is dependent on the individual. if you steal, then you are a sinner to those who think sinning is a sin and the same is true in vice versa according to Pro. Yet, here he says:
The concept of Sin does not come from our head, but from a 'real 'physical world action.
You can't have your cake and eat it too Pro. If your argument is that sin is dependent on what ones values, then it is indeed in the head of a person as it is shaped by their moral values. If sin is the result of physical actions, then you can't maintain that sin is dependent on ones morals because sin would have to physically exist to be involved with physical actives.
CONCLUSION:
Pro continues to fail to establish that sin is real. All Pro has done is make arguments that on contradictory in nature. First, they argued that sin was defined as "missing the mark," which they said was in contrast to moral actions of lying and stealing. Now, they argue that sin exists both objectively and subjectively at the same time, which makes no sense. It is no different then if I told you that you are free to pick any apple you want because all apples exist on the tree physically, but you also are not free to pick any apple because the apple does not physically exist. Either the apple (sin) exists or it does not. It cannot be both a subjective concept and physically real. Lasty, Pro has made zero counter arguments to the points I made during the entire debate. They have effectively no answer for the scientific and physical lack of evidence for sin.
Bolden
I just thought copying your bolden titles would make it easier for me to stay on point, of each of your arguments. And my own.
Definition and Contradiction
Hm, it might be me, but I don't see the contradiction.
I also don't agree that sin cannot have multiple or broad definition.
Various Religions have ideas on what a person is 'supposed to do,
Missing the mark, missing the action one is 'supposed to take, is called a Sin.
Again, not 'my definition, I used sources and this definition to my eyes applies to Sin throughout cultures.
Why would stealing be wrong?
Because you're supposed to not be sinning.
So by stealing you miss the mark of that belief system.
Subjective Sin
No, I 'never argued Sin was subjective, as I have 'only argued that to Sin, is to miss the mark.
That there are different targets,
Does not mean the action of missing one does not exist.
Pro is arguing that there should only be one target, but this debate is not on Objective morality. It is on the existence of Sin.
Redefining
There 'is no redefining.
If I shoot at a target and hit the wrong one,
I can both miss my target, and hit my opponents target messing up his arrows.
"Judaism teaches that sin is a part of life, since there is no perfect man and everyone has an inclination to do evil. Sin has many classifications and degrees, but the principal classification is that of "missing the mark" (cheit in Hebrew)."
"The Hebrew word khata’ is most commonly translated as “sin.” Khata’ means “to fail” or “to miss the goal,” and the word is not always about morality."
I don't understand how Pro thinks I am inventing this definition out of nowhere?
Subjective
Something being subjective does not mean that it does not exist.
If there a stone monolith,
That I stand on the sun side, and someone else stands on the shadow side,
We both understand our subjective view of the object is different,
But we both agree there is a stone monolith
Tornado (This also addresses the cake claim by Pro)
The tornado matters as an argument because of my opponents 2nd argument in round 1.
"physically exist"
Air 'physically exists,
Air 'moving is wind, but it is also a concept, as 'throwing a ball. The 'ball exists.
'Missing the mark is a concept, yet the material action circumstance also exists.
To sin, to 'miss the mark, describes a material circumstance, but it is also conceptual.
Concepts are 'not divorced from physical reality.
Conclusion
I do not think I have contradicted myself.
I think I have addressed Pros arguments.
The apple tree exists.
If one does not develop the concept that one can pick apples, how could one pick an apple?
Picking an apple exists both as a concept and a physical reality.
Sorry if my arguments were not what you were looking for.
It was not my intent to be difficult.
Other two arguments I considered were, that if the afterlife doesn't exist then sin 'very much material.
If God does exist, then it is objectively tied to their standards.