On the previous post, I pointed out that ‘Sin’ is a fake concept within religions. And to back my claim I argued about how it cannot be a ground for rejecting another belief (wrong or not).
But, aside from that, I believe there is one more thing that can prove the fakeness of ‘Sin’ or other religious ideas, and that is the lack of internal consistency that appears in history of religions, specially the ones based on a holy book (such as the Koran or the Bible).
Let’s make an example first: For years, people thought that diseases were the result of God’s wrath, or his test. No one knew about those smallest of beings, ‘the reason’ for disease. Then came Louis Pastor, with his theory and his swan neck duct, and showed that Bacteria and Germs are real.
Well, however God has to go one step behind and be the reason for Germs this time, this is not the end game for religion; because though the reason for disease was known, that reason and therefore diseases could still perfectly be God’s wrath or test. But then, came the ‘cure’ for diseases. This is a game changer, because of another idea within religion: Omnipotence God. God is Almighty, and this means that we, as his creations, by definition cannot overcome him, or his wrath, or to cheat in his tests.
Excuse me, but I think we did: Vaccinations, Antibiotics, Condoms…
The notion that “AIDS is God’s punishment for “their” sins” has to die, because if God was to send a perfect punishment, it should not be prevented by condoms, a tiny, cheap thin piece of plastic that reduces the chance of HIV infection significantly.
And as we see, religious ideas change throughout the history, they die away and fall apart, because of the inconsistency within religious ideas, that science shed light on. And this concludes my point here: religious arguments are fake arguments. They are made up in the past to support ideas that belong to the past, even the meaning of something like sin is bound to be so.