🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jul 31, 5:35�pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)"
<alwh...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> OnJul31, 10:11 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > OnJul30, 9:54 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)"
>
> > <alwh...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > OnJul30, 11:10 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > > OnJul26, 9:29pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)"
>
> > > > <alwh...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > OnJul25, 3:33 am, "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > > "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in messagenews:0e62a809-81a3-4f16-a6d5-fb09b5f8ccb8@p10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > > > > OnJul24, 5:56 am, BuddyThunder <nos...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> > > > > > >> Alex W. wrote:
> > > > > > >> > "BuddyThunder" <nos...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
> > > > > > >> >news:48864044$1@clear.net.nz...
>
> > > > > > >> >> There is no sin. It's a silly idea that you haven't been able to back
> > > > > > >> >> up
> > > > > > >> >> at all. I just believe that people should be free to go about their
> > > > > > >> >> lives
> > > > > > >> >> free of inexplicable religious bigotry. If you don't think you fall
> > > > > > >> >> into
> > > > > > >> >> that category, then explain yourself. Otherwise worry about your own
> > > > > > >> >> failings before the perceived ones of others.
>
> > > > > > >> > Sorry, mate, you're wrong on this one.
> > > > > > >> > There is sin.
> > > > > > >> > Sin is an infraction of the moral code; it is a social construct.
>
> > > > > > >> I disagree. Some people would see me as sinful, I would just go with
> > > > > > >> immoral when I fall short of my own values.
>
> > > > > > > Which would gel with sin being the social construct. It's a loaded
> > > > > > > word though. Everyone has their own meaning and inferences, so I
> > > > > > > suggest we use other more concise words.
>
> > > > > > What would you suggest by way of alternatives?
>
> > > > > > I actually think that a great many people nowadays see "sin" no longer in
> > > > > > strictly religious terms. Eating a Mars bar or binging on double chocolate
> > > > > > chip ice cream is regarded as "sinful", or fly-tipping your household
> > > > > > rubbish.
>
> > > > > > Words are often loaded one way or another -- but that can anddoeschange.
> > > > > > Not too long ago, "gay" was a perfectly innocent cheerful word gambolling
> > > > > > along the byways of the English language. Ditto homosexuality: we may not
> > > > > > find it particularly tasteful when having our faces thrust in it, but most
> > > > > > of us no longer regard this sexual orientation as a sin in either the
> > > > > > religious or the secular sense.
>
> > > > > Well, considering the context, I would avoid using the term and be
> > > > > more specific, due to theists often jumping on meanings hidden
> > > > > insentences that were never intended etc etc.
> > > > > Yes, "Sin" has come into more generalised use esp in regards to food
> > > > > consumption. But in this case it's more of a case of self-destructive
> > > > > behaviour and not counter-moralistic. Again, I think being specific
> > > > > is useful.
> > > > > And technically I was arguing that "sin" is a social construct. Not
> > > > > religious, but that using the term in a discussion between atheists
> > > > > and theists might lead to miscommunication.
>
> > > > > Al- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Well, I keep coming back to mass homicides done by atheists. Was it
> > > > the fact that the perpetrators were atheists that meant you believe
> > > > they did not sin, or would would you believe the same thing to be true
> > > > of a mass murderer who claimed to be Christian?
> > > > Robert B. Winn
>
> > > I don't care whodoesthe killing, killing is wrong. As previously
> > > stated, I'm NOT going to use the word "Sin" becuase too many people
> > > have different meanings for it.
> > > And I don't really see how you got from a discussion of concepts of
> > > "sin" to discussing "mass homicides done by atheists". Maybe we
> > > should discuss the many many more "mass homicides done by theists".
> > > However, no-one kills FOR atheism because it's nothing. It's not a
> > > belief in anything, so you can't commit atrocities for atheism. In
> > > Stalin's case, he had millions murdered for Marxism. Marxism was anti-
> > > church and ostensibly anti-religious, but there's a world of
> > > difference between anti-godand atheism. And the reasons why Marxism
> > > was anti-church was more about controlling people that any theological
> > > position.
> > > But the point isn't whether religious nutters or atheist nutters
> > > killed more people. I'm sure there's plenty on both sides. But
> > > atheism itself can't be used as a motivator to get people to kill
> > > others.
> > > It's not killing done by group A, but killing done for reason B that
> > > worries me. A lot of mass-murders are perpetrated by people with
> > > moustaches.Doesthat make moustaches evil?
>
> > > Al- Hide quoted text
>
> > �Pol Pot did not have a moustache, and it did not slow him down.
> > Anyway, Stalin and Pol Pot were pikers compared to the pro-abortion
> > faction of today. �With regard to abortion, you could say it is done
> > by group A, or you could say it is done for reason B. �Either way,
> > more people are killed by abortion than by any other way in history.
> > Well, with regard to Stalin, he was also the one who legitimized
> > abortion in Europe. �Women in Russia were not averaging five abortions
> > in their lifetimes until Stalin came along.
> > Robert B. Winn
>
> What unmitigated rubbish. �All things added up the main killer of
> humans has been Malaria. �Probably followed by violence from other
> humans.
> So,you're saying that on average women have more abortions than
> children? �Throughout history? �That is incredibly stupid.
>
> Al- Hide quoted text -

Well, in some countries they do at the present time, which has more
women than any other time in history.
Robert B. Winn