🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jul 31, 10:28 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
> On Jul 30, 10:12 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)"
>
>
>
> <alwh...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > On Jul 31, 10:35 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 30, 3:29 pm, "Steve O" <nospamh...@thanks.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "rbwinn" <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:bc036a34-ce99-476c-852f-7fab58fc9c4f@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > > On Jul 29, 10:38 pm, hhyaps...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >> On Jul 27, 3:10 pm, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >> > "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)" <alwh...@optusnet.com.au> skrev i en
> > > > >> > meddelelsenews:34fb05b4-6c3a-40ac-9f83-cce0aec23a28@u6g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > >> > > On Jul 25, 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...
>
> > > > >> > >> > On Jul 24, 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 and does
> > > > >> > >> change.
> > > > >> > >> 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
>
> > > > >> > Discussion between atheists and theists leads to miscommunication.-
> > > > >> > Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > >> > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > >> No, the minds of atheist are clear.
> > > > >> The minds of theists are clouded, holding their ancient book to guide
> > > > >> them.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > Well, in the case of Hezekiah's tunnel, the ancient book was right and
> > > > > atheists were wrong. How do you explain it?
> > > > > Robert B. Winn
>
> > > > In what way were atheists wrong about Hezekiah's tunnel?
>
> > > > --
>
> > > Well, atheists said originally that there was nothing in the Bible
> > > that could be proven by anything that exists today.
> > > Actually, they have not yet moved from that position. They still
> > > claim that just because there is a tunnel used as a conduit for water
> > > where three books of the Old Testament say a conduit for water was
> > > dug, that does not mean that the Bible was talking about the same
> > > tunnel.
> > > Robert B. Winn
>
> > No-one made that claim. This has been repeatedly pointed out to you.
>
> > Al- Hide quoted text -
>
> The claim was made.  It was stated several times that just because the
> Bible described the construction of a tunnel, it did not mean that
> Hezekiah's tunnel was the tunnel described in the Bible.  The fact
> that it was where the Bible said the tunnel was built was just a co-
> incidence.
> Robert B. Winn

Your goal posts move faster than the eye can follow, don't they?
No-one made the claim that "There is Nothing in the bible that can be
proven."
Several people pointed out that just because there is a tunnel where
the bible says there is a tunnel, does not mean that anything else it
said (even about the tunnel) is true.  Because we would expect the
authors, (fiction authors or historians) to know about the tunnel back
then.  They may not have known where it came from though, so we can't
trust their account of that until it has been established by other
methods.


Al