🚀 go-pugleaf

rbwinn wrote:
> On Jul 31, 5:41�am, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>> rbwinn wrote:
>>> On Jul 30, 9:54 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)"
>>> <alwh...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>> On Jul 30, 11:10 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 26, 9:29 pm, "Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)"
>>>>> <alwh...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>> 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- 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 who does the 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-god and 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. Does that 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.
>> And every time a male ejaculates, he kills millions. �With millions of
>> men in the world, trillions are killed every day.
>>
>> Right?
>>
>> --
>>
> Wrong.  He kills male reproductive cells.

Which are not human life?  What are they? Dogs?

-- 
******************************************************
*          DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226            *
*----------------------------------------------------*
* "I distrust those people who know so well what God *
*  wants them to do because I notice it always       *
*  coincides with their own desires."                *
*                                 --Susan B. Anthony *
******************************************************