Thursday, June 11, 2009

You're an Atheist Because You Want to Sin

This has to be the thing Christians say to me that causes me to roll my eyes the highest and hardest. I mean, aside from the obvious problem that I, and pretty much all atheists, don't believe sin exists as a moral affront to a God we do not believe in, the entire argument on that basis is completely insconsistent.

I'll put it simply: If I wanted to sin and have no repercussions for it, I'd be an evangelical.

Sounds completely contradictory, right? Counterintuitive?

It certainly goes against the spirit of "the law," but according to the wackaloons in the evangelical mindset, as long as you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior (Grace only theology) then you're cool. So, if I were trying to avoid repercussions for so-called sin (since you say i really do believe in God by implication) why would I choose the option where I don't really get away with "sin" in the end over the option where I get to sin all I like and get rewarded at the end of the race?


  1. I actually think I am better person and treat people better now as an atheist than I ever did as a Christian. I act almost the same way as a did before I converted.

    Fundiegelicals are douche bags.

  2. You do point out the obvious flaw there. If sinning was really my thing, I'd be way better off getting myself Once Saved Always Saved.

    Though I do enjoy the lust . . .

  3. I honestly can't think of a single sinful thing I do that I wouldn't gladly give up if I thought there was any reality to heaven/hell (saving my own ass, I know).

    The usual one the fundies will cry is 'pride' which, to them, is synonymous with 'critical thinking' and the antonym of 'gullible'. Funnily enough, it's not even one of the Big 10.

  4. "as long as you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior"

    If you're desiring to disobey Jesus (sin) then Jesus obviously isn't your Lord nor your Saviour.

  5. How would you know another man's heart? Someone accepting Jesus is mutually exclusive of following his commandments. Either the law matters (works and faith) or it doesn't (faith/grace alone).

    You can't have it both ways.

  6. Makarios: people stray, and people are "sinful" by nature alone. That's the entire reason why you need to accept Jesus, or so I am told. It is forgiveness for that nature, and for the little, shall we call them, indiscretions that is the entire point of the idea that is salvation. If you wish to claim otherwise, there are going to be a lot of unhappy faces on Judgment Day, I suppose.

    Should I also note that the idea that atheists aren't Christian entirely so that they can be sinful is an inherently biased perspective in that it automatically presumes their religion to be a cultural or logical default? No one accuses Christians of being Christian because they don't want to keep kosher, and similarly no one accuses non-Hindus of being not Hindu simply for their love of beef. It is a low blow to try to make rejection of Christianity an issue of avoiding the moral standards of the religion(that Christianity really doesn't even have) rather than simply not believing its main thesis.