Is Religion Required to Declare Something a Sin?

If you are a religious zealot, this post is not for you. However, if you are a thinker, a philosophy aficionado, or a non-religious person, dive into this thought.

Does declaring something a sin require a religious premise?

In other words, if I were non-religious, could I acknowledge something as sin?

I could most certainly acknowledge something as wrong. I could acknowledge something as immoral. Sin is not necessarily a synonym for either wrong or immoral, despite what Webster's thinks.

Morality can exist without religion or Faith.

Sin carries with it a religious connotation. Let me illustrate how easy the religious implication comes about.

If I were to ask you if homosexuality were a sin, you would be inclined to say No. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality. Ask a religious person the same question.

If you were to ask me if murder were a sin, what would be your response?

I'm leaving this open ended. As a non-religious man, I don't think I could accept either question as valid. If rephrased as whether homosexuality or murder were wrong, then I could answer. Are either sins? That, I cannot entertain as I am not a religious person. Sin does not exist in my world. It might as well not be a word. Do you see what I'm getting at?

My Atheism validated by recent storms

In the many discussions I've taken part in with believers from various flavors of Christianity, a very sad revelation comes to light when they are confronted with the notion that there is no God. They told me that if there is no God, then we are hurtling through space without any rhyme or reason. They then told me that they cannot live a life where that is the case. For them, there has to be something beyond our comprehension. There has to be a reason for all we have endured.

The obvious gap such an absence leaves has to do with morality, but as someone who can appreciate philosophy, morality can exist without God or the influence of religion. While religious people derive moral practices by way of Faith and the individual teachings of their religion, fans of elaborate philosophical debate realize the absurdity of such an assertion.

The connection between morality and God, I feel, is what keeps people latched on to this notion that we cannot simply be hurtling through space without any hand guiding us.

To me, the recent disastrous storms which hit Missouri and Alabama represent the randomness that is hurtling through space. Many people survived. Some died. If you were left asking why it was you survived a tornado, don't turn to God. Others died around you. That's randomness. That's chance. The reason you survived was complex and should take into account the structural integrity of your house, the location of that house, your physical stature, the tornado itself, and many other things that should seem obvious. The hand that protected you did not protect others and the notion that God took lives because it was their time is ludicrous, but it will be the answer your pastor tells you if asked. The dead, while living in their final moments, were likely huddled together, praying for safety, praying to make it out of the storm alive. Their prayers were not answered.

It takes a lot of nerve to explain a random event in that way, suggesting that people were taken by a god. It takes even more gall to suggest that these tornadoes are somehow representative of God's wrath. That's comforting, isn't it? I'd say the spite is in the human tongue, not in the hand of any god. Religion makes people think very strange things and as a man of science, I simply cannot believe my ears lately.

There is no hand protecting us. We are on our own. I think we'd be a better people if we realized no higher power is out there to be our crutch. We only have each other.