I was sifting through these videos the other day, because of your suggestion. And I'm suprised that secularist after all this time still peddle this superstition. I'm guessing this fairy tale is easily swallowed when it isn't taken into practice, because doing so in practice would reveal how silly such notions are. As if evil, surrenders to lofty arguments.

I recall my days in a HS plagued by violence, that a class called "conflict resolution" was introduced into the curriculum, promoted by that secular humanism dream, only to realize that I had seen more fights break out in the class than any other ones. I have friends who are college educated, and well off who go to clubs on weekends for the sole purpose of looking for fights, because they find this violent expression as fulfilling, and empowering, and I would like to see Richard Carrier result to his lofty arguments to dissuade them.

During the civil rights movement, the pervasive liberal belief was that "racism was a problem of prejudice that would naturally succumb to the American creed and education. Those muscular liberals who had embraced realism in the global arena clung to the fantasy of what the historian David Kennedy called ''a virtually painless exit from the nation's racist history.'

Such optimism was not shared by blacks, who did not stress enlightened rationality but the presence of sin and the need for its chastisement.

[...] Fannie Lou Hamer,  knew the evil of the Mississippi police who tortured her and the goofiness of the idea that they would surrender to lofty arguments." http://www.nytimes.com/ref/books/review/08RIEDERT.html

Richard Carrier may come off convincing to a group of a middle aged middle class humanist from Canada, but a joke to anyone who even slightly understands the strains on the human condition, and the illusion of morality. So let's not get into the business of selling unexamined myths.

If you still find yourself in support of Carrier's ideas I suggest you break them down for me, tell me in your words what you think scientific values are, and how these values relate to moral values.

lofty arguments of the bible? who said anything about lofty arguments of the bible?

Uhm that's not an argument from the bible, its only an argument from the bible if in fact it's implications are that "sin" only exist because the bible says it does. Here sin has a context in the reality of the times, not relegated to a book. It can simply be reworded as the presence of immorality and the need for it's correction. It has a context independent of the bible, though the word has biblical origins, the concept does not. 

Thinking of it this way, if the word love, or morality was conceived of by theist, does that mean that when we use such terms that we are making theistic arguments?

In fact you'll find a number of atheist who reference passages from the bible, such as Hitchen's use of Isaiah's woe to those who call evil good, and good evil", or Sam Harris's use of Paul's staring through the glass darkly, when they are in no way shape or form making biblical arguments. 

I agree with the christian conception of sin, other than the strain that conceives of it as something cosmic that resulted from some fellow literally eating a magical fruit, even when i was a disbeliever. I can agree that sin is present in humanity, and that sin is rooted in human nature rather than purely human institutions, and environments, and this conception of sin can only be biblical if that it is dependent on the bible for it to be true.

Sure it would, in fact the oxford English dictionary has one such definition of sin as such:

Sin: an act regarded as a serious or regrettable fault, offense, or omission : he committedthe unforgivable sin of refusing to give interviews 

In fact even the wikipedia definition of sin has similar connotations: sin: "an act that violates a moral rule, or the state of having committed such a violation."....."Sin is often used to mean an action that is prohibited or considered wrong."...."Colloquially, any thought, word, or act considered immoral, shameful, harmful, or alienating might be termed "sinful".

Do "thoughts, words, or acst considered immoral, shameful, harmful, or alienating" exist outside of a holy book? Do acts "regarded as a serious or regrettable fault, offense, or omission" exist out of a holy book? Do  acts that violates a moral rule, or the state of having committed such a violation." exist outside of a holy book?

Of course they do. 

"Sin" is the moral judgement of a human behaviour. In reality, there are behaviours. We can judge them good or bad if we like, but those are moral judgements. Similarly for any gods, who might judge behaviours as good or bad.

Nice quote