BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Bible Nonsense

"Christians 150 years ago were pro slavery, but today most of them are against it. Both sides used the Bible as a reference. Has the word of God changed over this period? Well, no!" You are correct, the Bible has not changed. But it can be misread. Christians 150 years ago found passages in the Bible, which they misinterpreted to justify what they were doing. The message of the Bible is one of a God who loves his people, so why would it justify slavery? Answer: it doesn't. Plus, people put the Bible onto paper. People are fallible. They can get things wrong, or misinterpret things. It is wholly possible that the Bible's inconsistencies are down to people not understanding or forgetting events when they came to writing them down. "The belief in the Bible doesn’t make any one a good person." No one ever said that when you believe in God you suddenly become a good person, although I believe that if you TRULY believe in God, you will want to try to become a good person. But this isn't something that will happen over night, we have to work at it. As to creation, which I believe you hint at when you say "Time and time again over the course of history the religious authorities have had to admit being wrong when science has proved their beliefs incorrect." Firstly, there is no concrete proof that this belief is wrong. The Big Bang theory is just that. A theory. Yet many people take it to be the fact. And the bible is full of metaphors. The '7 days' isn't necessarily an actual 7 days as we understand it. It is a period of time. And God, being God, could easily have set the Big Bang into motion, and put evolution into motion. Why do science and religion have to be mutually exclusive options? "So my question is, from a moral/scientificial/historical aspect, what is the point of the bible?" The point of the Bible is to tell everyone the story of God, Jesus and God's people. It may not be flawless, due to the people who were scribes, but it contains truth. It is to tell you the story so that you may choose whether or not to believe it. I choose to believe it and you don't. I say, it's your loss.
God is an idealised human authority figure

It is true, we cannot fully understand or even partly understand the capabilites and characteristics of God. Humans can only envision things from examples of other things they have seen before. God is really nothing like us, but in order to interact with humans, He has to act and talk partly like us. This is why phrases like 'God's Hand' 'God's Nose (anger)' appear in the bible. Yes, God is the perfect figure, being all-mighty, but why does that mean he can't exist?
God displays humanistic characteristics that prove that he is neither all powerful or all knowing, therefore making him human or non-existant

'we' need to worship god to keep faith and never lose hope. God is a crutch, a friend you'll never lose; a being you can trust to guide you o your path. God wants us to thrive being happy and optimistic because we are his/her creation. If God wanted recognition there would be no confusion over beliefs nor atheism as God would then reveal him/herself in all his/her glory to all his/her creation but God wants us to build trust/faith for our own sake. To acknowledge that there is so much that we do not yet know and unpredictable things do happen.
Limitations of human understanding

"Just because we can't directly percieve (sic) something, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist." The reason this is absolutely WRONG is simply that - 1. God isn't even indirectly perceived. Electro-magnetic radiation, molecules of the air, moons of Jupiter, et al are all things that could not be perceived, but their impacts could be witnessed - as air pressure, as a simple mercury barometer (the mercury rising up a capillary tube due to air pressure, etc. For example, it couldn't be perceived that sound needed a medium to be propagated. But when a ticking clock in a vaccuum chamber could not be heard, it became clear - it was indirectly perceived in relation to cause and effect. There is NO evidence to support the existence of God that would pass any rational muster. 2. Lack of our ability to 'see'. Well, we lack the ability to perceive Jupiter. We lack the ability to perceive people in the United States unless we're there. We lack the ability to see aliens. All that you've said there applies equally to alien life-forms, scientology, pastafarianism, and the cookie monster. We can't judge on the probability (or lack thereof) of something existence by merely stating that it might, but it can't be proved, and that until it can be disproved it stands proven. "Just because we can't directly percieve something, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just as we were once oblivious to the fact that electromagnetic fields exist, as do air molecules, as do the moons of Jupiter - we could be oblivious to a whole medley of things that are not immediately perceptible to human senses" Agreed, but things like air molecules and electromganetic fields can be Scientifically tested. God and the cookie monster however, Cannot. "Humans just can't have complete and perfect knowledge of things existing. This is due to our limitations. Dogs have a heigtened sense of smell and eagles have a heightened sense of vision - yet these species are lacking in other faculties such as the intelligence of humans; similarly humans are lacking in the abilites that they have. This shows that we are limited by our senses and can't fathom the existence of things outside our sphere of sense perception" Again, Agreed. Dogs have vastly superior smelling abilities in comparision to humans. However, the concept of god will not be percieved throught developed abilities to smell or see. But will be decided on the ability to pervieve, through logical and deductive reasoning. And who is more fit to ponder on the great questions of life than the mammals with the most developed brains and problem sovling abilities? Nobody, humans are fit for the job.
The idea of 'creation'

Nothing is perfect. By suggesting that God's method of creation is similar to human creation, you are implying that God created, and did not destroy, millions of imperfect things, and is therefore a very incompetent and untrustworthy artisan. Furthermore, other than all things that are created by man, there are those things which are in question - are these things created by some kind of awe-inspiring all powerful creator or not? And since God seems to have done a rather shoddy job on the planet (don't get me started on the terrible job he's done on human beings!) clearly we can't ascribe everything to him merely because 'someone must have done it!'. That completely misses the point of certain things. For example, if one were to assume, merely for a moment, that God didn't create everything - then the gravity between the moon and the Earth causing tides is a phenomenon that is not created by any greater or higher being - it is merely an action resulting from a proximate, traceable and tangible cause. Isn't it more of a stretch to say 'oooh, God must have done it so we can have a fun time on the beaches'? The TRUE problem we must adress here, is not the creation of a watch or computer. but the supposed creation of the universe. the idea that god created everyting out of NOTHING. the law of conservation of mass / energy makes this IMPOSSIBLE. WHY can we make computers? because we have the material in which TO MAKE the computer. you have the hard drive, the RAM, the operating system. Try this little experiment with me. 1.) sharpen a penicl- easy right? Materials: ( that you have ) Pencil and pencil sharpener. Why can you sharpen the pencil? because you have the materails to do so and the avenue to do so. Now try the second one 2.) Sharpen a Pencil #2 Materials: nothing What happened? why were you unable to sharpen the penicl. because you did not have the virigin materials to do so. without the pencil and the sharpener, the act of creating a sharpened pencil is impossible. You CANNOT create something out of nothing. the law of conseravation of mass and energy prove this. To exist, one must be within the universe, and to be in the universe makes this thing subject to the scientific laws of the universe. Therefore the act that god created the universe and life out of nothing is a logical and scientific Fallacy.
Consequences

"Logically, there has to be a beginning that is devoid of any beginning, something eternal, something beyond the boundaries of time and space that has a consciousness which caused the existence of the domain of the CREATED. This timeless, dimensionless Being is called God." You cannot create everything with nothing, thus proven by the Law of convseravation of mass/ energy. It is impossible. and even if he could, if he would be in this place that is beyond time, space and dimensions would place god in a position of being outside the universe. to EXIST, one must be in the universe. but since God is outside the universe in this 'space lacking time and dimensions', he does not exist. as one, either human or god must be within the universe to exist, because he does not, he cannot logically be assumed to exist. it is a logical and scientific fallacy.
Belief

By Believing in a god that you don' believe in, you are displaying one of the seven deadly sins-greed. by forgoing the nature of true belief, and expoliting the nature of belief, you will screw your self over. these two scenarios will prove this. 1.) God does exist, you die and go to the gates of heaven. While lying to god that you believed and had faith, god will know the act of your lying, as well as the act of greed in which you exploited the idea of faith and belief. Congrats! you get to live a enternal life of hell fire. Wonderful. 2.) God doesnt exist. But because you exploit the idea of faith for personal gain in the supposed after life, everybody hates the fact that you sacrifice your moral intergrity for a speculated gain. Congrats! everybody now knows you as the man/women who tried to exploit religion for personal gain. Everybody hates you. Wonderful. Yet again. "If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing -- but if you don't believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you will go to hell. Therefore One should believe in God." Agreed, minus the fact that you sacrifice you ingerity as a individual and sacrifice the morality of faith for personal greed. minus that, you lose nothing. which yet again, is a fallacy
Display of cultural treasures in western museums is a last hangover from the imperial belief that “c...

Display of cultural treasures in western museums is a last hangover from the imperial belief that “civilised” states such as Britain were the true successors to Greece and Rome, and that the modern inhabitants of those ancient regions were unable to appreciate or look after their great artistic heritage. Whether that was true in the 19th century is open to doubt it certainly is not valid today and the display of imperial trophies in institutions such as the British Museum or the Louvre has become offensive.
Artefacts such as the Parthenon marbles were often acquired illegally, for example through looting i...

Artefacts such as the Parthenon marbles were often acquired illegally, for example through looting in war (the Benin bronzes), under the duress of imperial force (many Chinese artefacts), or by bribing officials to ignore the carrying away of sculptures from monuments they were meant to be guarding (the Elgin marbles).
It may have been true that countries such as Greece were not capable of looking after their heritage...

It may have been true that countries such as Greece were not capable of looking after their heritage in the past, but that has now changed. A state-of-the-art museum has now been completed in Athens to house the surviving marbles, while pollution control measures have reduced sulphur-dioxide levels in the city to a fifth of their previous levels. At the same time the curatorship of institutions such as the British Museum is being called into question, as it becomes apparent that controversial cleaning and restoration practices may have harmed the sculptures they claim to protect.
Cultural treasures should be displayed in the context in which they originated; only then can they b...

Art treasures should be accessible to the greatest number of people and to scholars, and in practice this means retaining them in the great museums of the world. Returning treasures to their original context is impossible, too much has changed physically and culturally over the centuries for them to speak more clearly in their country of origin than they do in museums, where they can be compared to large assemblies of objects from a wide variety of cultures. In any case, perfect laser-cut copies could be placed on the Parthenon and in other original locations, if it were so desired.
Display of cultural treasures in western museums is a last hangover from the imperial belief that “c...

For whatever reason the treasures were first collected, we should not rewrite history; sending artefacts such as the Elgin marbles back to their country of origin would set a bad precedent that could denude museums around the world of their collections. Placing great artefacts in a geographical and cultural ghetto, whereby Greek sculptures could only be viewed in Greece, or Egyptian mummies in Egypt, would leave the world much poorer and reduce popular understanding of the achievements of such civilisations.
Artefacts such as the Parthenon marbles were often acquired illegally, for example through looting i...

Although some art treasures may have been acquired illegally, the evidence for this is often ambiguous. Lord Elgin’s bribes were the common way of facilitating any business in the Ottoman Empire, and do not undermine Britain’s solid legal claim to the Parthenon marbles, based upon a written contract made by the international-recognised authorities in Athens at the time. And while some Benin bronzes were undoubtedly looted, other “colonial trophies” were freely sold to the imperial powers, indeed some were made specifically for the European market.
Some cultural treasures, e.g Native American artefacts, have religious and cultural associations for...

This may be true, but religious artefacts may have been originally purchased or given in good faith, perhaps with the intention of educating a wider public about the beliefs of their creators. Later descendants should not be allowed to second-guess their ancestors’ intentions. On the other hand, a great many cultural treasures relate to religions and cultures which no longer survive and there can be no such claim for their return.
It may have been true that countries such as Greece were not capable of looking after their heritage...

In the case of the Parthenon marbles, Lord Elgin’s action in removing them was an act of rescue as the Ottoman authorities were pillaging them for building stone, caring nothing for the classical Greek heritage. Furthermore, if they had been returned upon Greek independence in 1830, the heavily polluted air of Athens would by now have destroyed them. Similar problems face the return of artefacts to African museums; wooden figures would decay in the humid atmosphere, while corruption has meant that 50 pieces disappeared from Nigeria’s premier museum in 1998.
Allowing school students to work part-time harms older workers. Teens are cheaper – in the UK there...

This argument is bad economics – there is not a fixed lump of work to be shared out, with winners and losers. Instead the economy will grow as more workers become available – and will shrink if millions of part-time student workers are not available. Studies have found that student jobs often pay more than the minimum wage, so they are not under-cutting adults. And adults are still needed for working regular hours while teens are in school. Indeed, adults don’t want to work the evening and weekend shifts that students usually cover.
Part-time work has a bad effect on schoolwork in two ways. Teens have less time to put into their s...

What a negative view of young people! If this was true, then banning students from part-time work would lead to many more quitting school at 16 in order to work full time. But most young people are sensible with their money, using it to buy clothes, gadgets, music and holidays. Studies have shown that older teens who work are good at saving their money, often putting it towards college.
School is about much more than lessons. Some of the best parts of education take place outside clas...

We must trust our teens to find their own way in the world, deciding which opportunities they will take. For most students, getting a part-time job is an important way of gaining independence. If we keep them wrapped up safe at home and school, they will never develop an adult identity. The danger then is they won’t be able to cope when they have to go to college or leave home for the first time.
High School students have to be in school up to the age of 16. Those who choose to stay on after th...

High School students have to be in school up to the age of 16. Those who choose to stay on after that age are also studying full-time. Schoolwork should be their priority, as they aim to get the good grades needed for college and future careers. If students are spending hours each week working in a part-time job, that is bound to have a bad effect on their school work. Homework will be done badly or not at all, and kids who have worked evening shifts will be too tired to learn well in school the next day. Banning students from taking paid jobs will mean they do better in school and come out with better qualifications.
Some students may be able to balance school work and jobs without harming their education, but they ...

Some students may be able to balance school work and jobs without harming their education, but they are a minority. Studies find that above about ten hours paid work a week, students do worse at school. And even if students try to limit how long they work for, employers often put pressure on them to put in more hours. At busy times of year like Christmas, holiday periods and stocktaking, students may be pushed into working many extra hours for fear of being sacked.
Working can have benefits for students, but all too often they are exploited in dead-end jobs. Most...

Working can have benefits for students, but all too often they are exploited in dead-end jobs. Most of the part-time work students can get is low-paid and low-skilled. It does not stretch them mentally and teaches them little compared to school. Dodgy bosses often treat teens worse then regular employees, for example not giving them holiday pay or proper training. Sometimes the work they do is unsuitable or even dangerous. It is interesting that a Scottish study found very few employers had bothered to get the permits needed for their student workers.
Allowing school students to work part-time harms older workers. Teens are cheaper – in the UK there...

Allowing school students to work part-time harms older workers. Teens are cheaper – in the UK there is no minimum wage for under-16s and it is common everywhere for younger workers to be paid less. They can also be pushed around more easily and are unlikely to protest or go on strike. For these reasons many bosses prefer to employ three part-time students for a job, rather than take on a full-time adult. Stopping students taking paid work would therefore create jobs for unemployed adults and help fight poverty.
Part-time work has a bad effect on schoolwork in two ways. Teens have less time to put into their s...

Part-time work has a bad effect on schoolwork in two ways. Teens have less time to put into their studies, but they also get money in their pockets. Too much money too young is a bad thing. Having a lot of money gives them the cash to fund their social life. So when they are not doing their job, they are out partying – no wonder they have no time to do homework and are too tired to focus in class. Income from a job also allows them to fund bad habits, such as drinking and drugs.
School is about much more than lessons. Some of the best parts of education take place outside clas...

School is about much more than lessons. Some of the best parts of education take place outside class time, such as sports, drama, music and voluntary work. When students take part-time work, they miss out on all these opportunities even if their homework doesn’t suffer. Students need time to grow up and become well-rounded individuals, rather than being shoved as soon as possible into the world of work.
High School students have to be in school up to the age of 16. Those who choose to stay on after th...

Getting a paid job is a normal part of growing up. For centuries teens were ordinary members of the workforce. And since education became compulsory, hundreds of millions of students have successfully combined school work with a part-time job. Studies have found that working a few hours outside school does not harm achievement, so there is no reason to ban it. Even if having a job did affect students’ education, teens are old enough to make that choice for themselves. It should not be forced on them by an official ban.
Some students may be able to balance school work and jobs without harming their education, but they ...

Having a part-time job can make students more positive about education. Experience of work makes them think about future careers. This may motivate them to go to college, and they see the point in working hard to get good grades so that they can get a better job. And serving customers, working hard in a job, and having to manage their time well can all help students develop a more professional approach to their studies. Finally, most university students have to work to pay their way through college, so having part-time job in school will help to prepare them for this.
Working can have benefits for students, but all too often they are exploited in dead-end jobs. Most...

School is not the only place where students can learn. For some skills it is not even the best place to learn. Students with part-time jobs are gaining valuable experience in a whole range of areas. They have to keep good time, work in a team, communicate with others and present themselves well. They learn self-discipline and gain in confidence. Less academic students may find the training they get with their job much more interesting and useful than the lessons they have at school. And a job may bring students into contact with people from different social backgrounds in a way school doesn’t. All of these mean that having a part-time job should be encouraged rather than banned.
Protests demonstrate Humanitarian concern

The voice of protesters is a voice for the poorest nations excluded from G-5/7/20 debates to put people before economic agendas, before capitalist lifestyle and securities extracted through global trade without a global conscience..The voice of protesters is an early sign of an impending shift in consciousness towards more humanitarian interests. These are good people on the streets, many of whom are tax payers with the courage to disrupt play when the rules are unfair and the game is fixed.
Protests have demanded a massive police presence

The police presence would have been necessary due to the security risks anyway. The G20 attracts world leaders who demand the best level of security available. As a responsible host of this summit London would have been foolish to offer anything less than the combined might of all its police. The fact that officers' leave has been cancelled for this period is perhaps a demonstration that even if protestors had not been active the police would have been out in force. With terrorism still a constant threat (and a plot having been uncovered for the G20 [[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/g20-summit/5077798/G20-terrorist-plot-uncovered-by-police.html]]) the need to protect these important leaders is paramount whether there are protests and riots or not. Both the police time and the money spent were necessary evils to prevent a greater one.