Bingowings said:
^I'd buy that for a dollar.
Surely the criteria should be who is harmed by this act.
If it's a public nuisance, say two girls full on at it on the top of a double decker bus passing a seafood restaurant then it's a rather naughty act.
If it's a man chopping the legs off passing children that's really nasty.
If it's a chap launching nuclear weapons at Clare Grogan it's a crime against all humanity.
Well, the term "sin" is traditionally used to mean something against divine law. If there is no god, then I'd have to conclude that there is no such thing as "sin". If there is a god, but he/she/it is a complete "twonk" then I'd have to say what he/she/it considers to be a "sin" ought not matter to me in the slightest, unless of course, I hold some sort of fear toward this "twonkish" deity.
I don't think things like girls going at it on top of a bus could be considered a sin just because it is a public nuisance.
I guess what I am trying to say is that the very idea of "sin" without the idea of a deity, or a respected deity, is a pretty silly thing. I don't think sin, as it is traditionally defined can, or should, exist outside of religion.
"Right" vs. "wrong" is another issue entirely. Though even that I think is mostly bunk. Without some universal truth, like a creator, how can "right" and "wrong" really exist as universals? If there is no such creator, and every thing just happened by chance, then like everything else, "right" and "wrong" are relative. I think at that point, "right" and "wrong" you'd have to assume right and wrong are simply culturally defined. In some cultures it may not be wrong to hack the limbs on a child, it could be part of some ritual sanctioned by that culture, a time honored tradition seen as somehow beneficial to that given society. Without some divine law or some higher power dictating what is right or wrong, could we still read about this culture and say that their barbaric acts were "sinful" or "wrong"?