🚀 go-pugleaf

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.
Robert B. Winn