🚀 go-pugleaf

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?

-- 
******************************************************
*          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 *
******************************************************