🚀 go-pugleaf

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.
Robert B. Winn