Do atheists / agnostics acknowledge sin?

[MagusYanam]

It has often been my experience that atheists or agnostics will claim that the concept of 'sin' is peculiar to the religious, or to Christians in particular, as for example Zzyzx posted in the 'is homosexuality worse than other sins?' thread:

Homosexuality is a “sin” only in the eyes of SOME Christians. No one is bound by anyone else’s interpretations of ancient religious tomes. A person who condemns the lifestyle of another is a BIGOT. Bigot is defined as: “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices”

Two-thirds of the world’s population is Non-Christian – four billion people who are NOT bound by Christian dogma. “Sin” in a Christian concept that applies to Christians. Others realize that there is no reason to accept the concept or the ranting that condemns what Christians decide their gods do or do not want.

I argue that this is not the case. I think of sin as a basic component of human nature, that leads us to be self-centred and short-sighted, and separated irreparably from our fellow human beings (and thus, if you will, from God). I have argued in this thread that homosexuality is not a 'sin', according to this definition, though that is not at issue here. I've seen atheists and agnostics on this site argue that there are evils like greed and bigotry and zealotry that could be classified under this definition as 'sin'.

So my question is, can atheists and agnostics acknowledge such a view of sin, that humans are separated irrevocably from each other thanks to our self-awareness that ultimately gives rise to self-centredness and short-sightedness?

[Openmind]

Obviously this also fits the description of numerous non-believers who are "intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices."

Numerous? Probably not. No doubt there are some. If you could prove to me with scientific evidence and not scriptural hogwash that God exists, then I would throw away my atheism in an instant. If God stepped in front of me and proved his miracles irrefutably, I would do the same

If a better scientific alternative to evolution came about, with more evidence and a sounder logical base, then I would throw away evolution in an instant.

On the other hand, if I planted a stack of evidence in front of you Easyrider, scientific and logical, that demonstrated that God is nothing more than human conception and that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, you would throw it all aside and tell me I am wasting my time.

Sin? No such thing. Original sin is even more repulsive - to think we are born sinful because of another person's actions. Even in the womb!

[spiritletter]

My atheist friends, while not believing in sin, have a distinct moral code that prevents them from hurting others. I think the Greek translation of "sin" is an archery term: it means that your trajectory is off. (Can someone who knows old Greek verify this?) This takes the word out of a moralizing dimension.

While I have a strong faith, I don't see sin the same way as some believers -- a kind of record of bad acts which will be weighed in the end -- I see it rather as an error of direction. If you're going the wrong way, you won't get to the right place. I mean place as metaphor.

[realthinker]

I was raised in a Catholic family, very Catholic. I have since abandoned all religion and I am now raising two children, now 4 and 6. Unless they've absorbed it from the few brief exposures they've had with church or religious conversation they have no idea what sin is. They also, except for repeating particular phrases, do not have a concept of prayer. We don't talk in terms of sin and we don't invoke prayer for any purpose.

Our position on behavior is very simple. There is a standard of behavior that will allow us to be accepted and successful in our society. We can either accept that and agree to cooperate or we can continually pay the price for doing otherwise. When they lie they lose our trust and our confidence. Likewise should they cheat or steal. There are consequences. When they do not get along nicely or when they treat one another with disrespect they have to know that they will simply lose the opportunity to continue to gain from the interaction they might have. I tell them, "You can not get along and have nothing, or you can cooperate and go play and have fun." It's worked so far remarkably well.

For those of you that say, "But without religion there's no reason to be moral," I say you're being deliberately naive. Social interaction has its distinct benefit. We each benefit from being able to engage in non-zero sum behavior with the people around us. We all get benefit from being part of society. Quite simply, if you can't get along within society you won't as probably fulfill your personal and genetic destiny.

And there are natural rules regarding the fundamentals of non-zero sum social behavior. Essentially it comes down to "don't lose the trust and confidence of your brethren". Every time you do something that benefits another it becomes more probable that when you need it, someone will improve the probability that you won't suffer from an unfortunate situation. Every time you're found to cause or take advantage of another's unfortunate circumstance you increase the probability that you will not find help when you might need it. Social scientists are finding more and more examples of simple social cooperation and unselfish behavior in all sorts of animals. It simply works.

[Catharsis]

The meaning of sin, of 'amartia' -- is to be "off your mark".

...but that's the extent of my knowledge of Greek.