nyuuzyou/wikis huggingface dataset:
Omnibenevolence

Omnibenevolence refers to the doctrine of a perfect and morally good God. In short, God loves us and wants the best for us. 
But somehow, for complicated reasons, God does not get round to stopping all of those earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters.God is Omnibenevolent. What does it mean to be all-loving? Most of the time, it is God who causes them harm, as seen in , , , , , , and . Furthermore, instead of preventing rape, he cares more about producing babies in the process.
In parts of the Bible, God is shown as a being who is anything but omnibenevolent, even using moral standards derived from the Bible. For example, the Book of Job in the Old Testament involves God tormenting Job, despite all Job's righteousness, just to win a bet with Satan.Can an Omnibenevolent Deity also be Omnipotent? The Book of Revelation also shows a lack of omnibenevolence, as it depicts most of the world being thrown by God into a lake of fire. In fact, God is still throwing everyone who he believes doesn't deserve eternal happiness into Hell. An omnibenevolent God wouldn't ever consider inflicting eternal punishment, or any punishment for that matter, on a being he created imperfect, or on any being at all. He is supposed to be very powerful, if not omnipotent.
The branch of theology devoted to solving the Problem of Evil is known as Theodicy and causes even more problems when paired with omniscience, Omnipotence, or omnipresence.SMBC's Summary For example, if God cannot sin, can He really be called all powerful? If He has no choice but to do good, can He be said to have free will? Is it really a meaningful statement to say God is good if God is incapable of doing evil? 
==References==
Category:Philosophy
Category:Religious terms
Omnipotence (français)

L'Omnipotence est la qualité d'être « tout puissant ».
==Philosophie==
Le concept d'omnipotence joue un rôle important dans nombre d'argumentations philosophiques et logiques pour ou contre l'existence de dieu, incluant l'argument ontologique, le paradoxe de l'omnipotence et le problème du mal.
De plus, l'omniscience et l'omnipotence sont contradictoires mutuellement en le sens où une forme du paradoxe de l'omnipotence peut se construire de cette façon : « un être tout puissant peut-il poser une question à laquelle un être omniscient ne saurait répondre ? ».
==Êtres omnipotents==
Exemples d'êtres omnipotents :
*Dieu (Si vous croyez qu'Elle existe)
*Chuck Norris
*Deepak Chopra
*le Père Noël
*Rush Limbaugh (Selon lui)
*Le Monstre de Spaghettis Volant
*Tmtoulouse
==Êtres mineurs non omnipotents==
*Zeus 
(Que dirait Héra ?)
*Bouddha 
*Popeye
==Voir aussi==
===Versions en autres langues===
==Références==
Category:Français
Category:Religious terms
Category:Philosophy
Category:Créationnisme
Omnitheism

Omnitheism (also called Omnism)Omnism is belief in the existence of all possible gods. Atheists believe in no gods; monotheists believe in one god; polytheists believe in many but not necessarily all gods; omnitheists believe in the existence of all gods that can possibly be believed in.
Consider this list of gods whom Christians and atheists do not believe in. Omnitheists believe in the existence of every god on that list; yes, that includes Suzumiya Haruhi. There are also many other deities in which omnitheists believe and which that list does not include such as (presumably) the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
By extension they (again presumably) also believe in "dead gods" - gods who now nobody else believes in - such as the ancient Egyptian pantheon. 
It is not entirely clear that Omnitheism really exists but according to a Wikipedia article that lacks citations people believe in Omnism which is similar.
==The God Om==
"Om" is also one of the gods of Terry Pratchett's Discworld, where he is heavily into the Judeo-Christian tradition of smiting, manifestations, monotheism, churches, sermons, inquisitions and commandments.Om at the Discworld wiki His followers are called "Omnians". Presumably Omnitheists, and Omnists, would also be Omnians as they would also believe in Om. 
==References==
Category:Paradigms of religion
On the Jews and Their Lies

On the Jews and Their Lies (Original German: "Von den Jüden und iren Lügen", Modern German: "Von den Juden und ihren Lügen") is an anti-Semitic pile of crap in 13 parts by Martin Luther, released in 1543. He had sympathy with the Jews for not converting to Catholicism, but when they didn't convert to his religion, well, the Jews must be of the devil, mustn't they? It's the only possible explanation. 
Section XI of the treatise advises Christians to carry out seven remedial actions. These are:
# to avoid Jewish synagogues and schools and warn people against them;
# to refuse to let Jews own houses among Christiansi.e. forcing them to live in ;
# for Jewish religious writings to be taken away;
# for rabbis to be forbidden to preach;
# to not offer protection for Jews on highways;
# for usury to be prohibited, and for all silver and gold to be removed, put aside for safekeeping and given back to Jews who truly convert; and
# to give young, strong Jews flail, axe, spade, spindle, and let them earn their bread in the sweat of their noses.Luther, Martin. The Jews and Their Lies, (Publisher: Christian Nationalist Crusade, 1948).
How much influence would the intense bigotry of a key leader of Protestant thought have on Germany and on Christendom? states:
Luther does get a favorable nod from Hitler in the latter's book Mein Kampf as being one of the "great reformers." Hitler, Adolph, Mein Kampf, Reynal & Hitchcock, New York, 1939 p,287
Of course, some people (including some theologians, naturally enough) disagree with the mainstream view, arguing that Luther's bigotry actually had little effect. Even if this were true, this hateful extended rant can hardly have helped Germany to be filled with Christian love. Its use to lend support to Nazi anti-Semitism would be shocking to many Christians who consider Luther a hero of the faith. 
Only in the 1980s did some Lutheran church bodies start to dissociate themselves from Luther's hatred and bile toward the Jews, more than 400 years after its publication.
Not surprisingly, the book has been reprinted by "evangelist" Texe Marrs, whose website store is peppered with anti-Semitic and Holocaust revisionist books.
== External links ==
* On the Jews and Their Lies by Martin Luther, 1543
* Von Juden und ihren Lügen (in Modern German) by Martin Luther, 1543
==References==
Category:Antisemitism
Category:Christianity
Category:Documents
Category:Judaism
On the Origin of Species

On the Origin of Species (full title: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life) was the first book to propose natural selection as an explanation for evolution and the already established "mutability of species". It was written by naturalist Charles Darwin and published in 1859 about 20 years after his trip on the HMS Beagle. While The Origin of Species is how the book is commonly referred to, the full title is a staggering one; "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".
In a nutshell, the book states "There are variations in creatures that are passed on to their descendants. Some of these variations are beneficial, and aid in the species' survival, and some are detrimental. The beneficial variations live on, and the detrimental ones die out." As well as numerous case studies and pieces of evidence - and being shorter than Darwin actually intended - he spends several chapters countering concerns and criticisms offered by the many people Darwin discussed his theories with prior to publication. Origin was later followed by Descent of Man, which applied Darwin's theory to human evolution.
Herbert Spencer coined the term "survival of the fittest" in his Principles of Biology (1864) and this phrase was included in the fifth edition of Darwin's work. However, it has often been misinterpreted as "survival of the strongest" rather than "survival of the most fit for purpose" meaning the most adept at exploiting an ecological niche. 
Many fundamentalist religious people are highly offended by the concepts presented in Origin and the science of evolution that has developed since its publication. This is because it is obvious to them that it is easier to make people from dirt than from other living things.
The book exacerbated already-prevalent racist, white supremacist sentiments. Missouri Democrat , employed race-baiting fearmongering of interracial marriage as 's running mate in the 1868 United States presidential election. His racist viewpoints were hardened and reinforced upon reading The Origins of Species.Eric Foner, Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, p. 340. Democrats motivated by the "New Departure" movement blamed the subsequent election defeat on Blair's demagoguery.
==See also==
*Origin of Species (2009) — reprint by a creationist trying to cash in.
==References==
==External links==
*Editions of On the Origin of Species on Wikisource 
category:books
category:science
Category:Culture wars
Category:Evolution
Category:Racism
On the spot fallacy

An on the spot fallacy (OTS) is a logical fallacy that occurs when a debater is considered wrong (or even incapable of having an opinion) if they cannot recite specific data or technical minutiae on some topic. The fallacy asserts that one must be an expert on a topic in order to discuss anything related to it (and, at that, an expert with flawless memory).
The fallacy often occurs during a Gish gallop — because people are unable to respond to so many arguments at once.
The fallacy is a conditional fallacy, because people are expected to provide evidence for their position. This fallacy occurs when people ask for evidence that's unreasonably in-depth and do not allow the responder sufficient time or access to resources to answer the question adequately.
==Alternative names==
*drag-you-into-the-weeds fallacy (alternatively "drag-you-into-the-weeds-and-strangle-you" fallacy)
*minutiae trap
==Explanation==
OTS is a mixture of credentialism and appeal to authority (you're wrong because you don't know absolutely everything about an issue), shifting the burden of proof (you have to prove that something is absolutely true, while the opposite side has no burden to disprove what evidence you present) and moving the goalposts (by demanding increasingly overspecific replies to a question that's already been answered, until the replier fails to be more specific, at which point the original question is considered unanswered or incorrectly answered).
The issue isn't just that it's practically (though perhaps ultimately not technically) impossible to meet the excruciatingly high burden of proof they request, but rather that it's unreasonable for one to have everything available immediately. Even experts don't carry around stacks of all the collected evidence for their position.
In retort, users of OTS almost always have some factoid (often a one single proof-style argument) or discredited research at the ready. It's also used as a springboard into several other fallacies or fallacious arguments, because once you've fallen for the trap, they can throw their fallacious spells at each thing you cite.
==Abuse==
Some people (especially creationists) abuse the fallaciousness of OTS to say something like, "Just because I don't have an explanation for why I believe what I believe now, this doesn't mean that no such reason exists, and thus there's no reason for me to reconsider my beliefs." Taken to an extreme, this argues that, because it's possible that a good reason for a belief exists, that belief is justified. This, too, is fallacious. There is a difference between being unprepared to defend a position (which you have good reasons for holding, though just not on hand at the moment) and holding a belief for literally no (or indeed some rather poor) reason.
==See also==
*One single proof
Category:Neologisms
Category:Conditional fallacies
Onanism

Onanism is the act of "spilling one's seed" in any place other than a woman's vagina. 
It is most often used as a euphemism for male masturbation, although it can mean coitus interruptus (the withdrawal method of contraception), as in which is the origin of the term. Both these acts are regarded as serious sins by the Roman Catholic Church and other, less-than-progressive Abrahamic religions.
The word derives from a rather unfortunate man called Onan, whose older brother, Er, was struck down by God for being evil.Though neither the nature of his evilness nor the method of his holy execution are recorded in . Hebrew custom required that Onan marry his brother's widow, Tamar, and produce a male heir. Whilst Onan married Tamar, he was unhappy that any heir he fathered would be Er's and not his. Consequently, whenever he had sex with Tamar, as the King James translation somewhat coyly puts it, he "spilled his seed on the ground". This being the Old Testament, and Old Testament God being a mean, cussed old bastard, Onan was promptly slain for this impertinence.The entire story is rather brief and parochial, lasting all of 4 verses (ending with ).
As the etymology suggests, the tale has been taken as an injunction against masturbation and used to instill feelings of guilt and shame into generations of Christians.It seemed so innocentThe Sin of OnanOne Woman's Addiction to Masturbation The actual text is, however, incredibly vague on what, specifically, Onan did to deserve such a rich, creamy helping of God's loving Wrath. The story seems to suggest coitus interruptus rather than masturbation, and the most sensible explanation is that he was divinely smoked for refusing to perform his familial duty of providing an heir to his brother.
There is a body of opinion which holds that Onan was punished not for masturbation, but for disobeying God, though there are plenty of people walking around today who have willfully failed to impregnate their brother's widows. Probably they will die later. 
Noted smartass named her parrot Onan, because he too spilled his seed upon the ground.
==See also==
*Examples of God personally killing people
*Jonanism
== External links ==
*Genesis 38 - The Brick Testament
*Conservapedia on Onanism
*The Poxy Boggards - The Ballad of Onan
==Notes==
==References==
Category:Christian mythology
Category:Purity culture
Category:Fundamentalism
__NOTOC__
One-drop rule

The one-drop rule is a term referring to racist rules in the Jim Crow laws that classified as black anyone with any African ancestry. These laws were all passed in the era between 1910 (when Tennessee passed the first one) and 1931 (in Oklahoma). Regardless of one's appearance, any African parentage meant you were legally considered a black person for the purposes of segregation.The One-Drop Rule Defined Similar rules applied to Native American ancestry, though less strictly as many prominent families claimed descent from Pocahontas. 
In non-American usage, this concept is referred to as hypodescent, or the idea that any mixing of social classes means the progeny belong to the lower class.hypodescent 
In previous eras, many prominent lawmakers had pushed back against this type of law, knowing well that nearly every prominent family had some African ancestry, but as this memory retreated, family myths erased such fears.Daniel J. Sharfstein, Crossing the Color Line: Racial Migration and the One-Drop Rule, 1600-1860, Vanderbilt University Law School, 2007, p. 642.
These rules were declared unconstitutional as part of Loving v. Virginia, which also ruled miscegenation laws unconstitutional.LOVING v. VIRGINIA
==Cultural perspective==
While no longer a current legal concept, the underlying attitude is sadly still prevalent in American culture. For example, Barack Obama is widely considered to be, and self-identifies as, African-American (or "black"), even though he has equal African and European ancestry. Colin Powell's ancestry includes "English, Irish, Scotch, probably Arawa Indian, and a Jewish strain"http://ethnicelebs.com/colin-powell and even has a Scottish coat of arms.https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/may/12/usa.world This attitude is different from South Africa for example, where people of mixed ancestry are considered and not , which is used for people of primarily African heritage.http://www.arogundade.com/is-barack-obama-black-or-mixed-race.html
Some white supremacists also believe a person of European descent with a certain percentage of racial ancestry shouldn't be considered white. For example, they might think a person who is mostly European but has 5% of African ancestry isn't a white person, and thus should be deported, sterilized or killed to maintain white hegemony. 
==External links==
*Mixed Race America- Who Is Black? 
==References==
Category:Law
Category:Racism
One-way hash argument

A one-way hash argument is a fallacious style of debate where one party makes a simple (or simple-sounding), yet typically dishonest assertion that is difficult and time-consuming for their opponent to rebut. The phrase was first coined by Julian Sanchez of the Cato Institute, who had noticed similarities between the debating style of global warming denialists and creationists.Julian Sanchez. "Climate Change and Argumentative Fallacies." April 6, 2009.
It derives its name from which is an used to generate cryptographic (called digests, or, hashes). In an extremely ironic example of what happens when you let laypeople anywhere near complicated technical terms, Sanchez used "one-way hash" to refer to something that was not actually a one-way hash, which in turn was the wrong analogue for the type of argument he was trying to describe. This error goes right over most laypeople's heads, thus neatly illustrating Sanchez's own point:
Sanchez states that the aim of a one-way hash argument is to persuade the general public, which is not particularly well-versed about the topic under discussion:
So basically, the goal is toss out bullshit that sounds halfway plausible to those without the education to know better.Incidentally, the Republican Party is going to great lengths to ruin the public education system. This is probably not a coincidence; they're all charlatans who want to ensure that the bulk of the population are highly-credulous suckers. Creationists absolutely love one-way hash arguments. So too do Moon landing denialists.
Another related concept is the "soundbite". A common complaint within contemporary politics is that politicians are increasingly having to speak in simple, snappy "soundbites", with less and less of a place in the public sphere for longer, more reasoned arguments.
==See also==
*Gish Gallop — a tactic that similarly aims to overwhelm one's opponent
*On-the-spot fallacy
*Ultracrepidarianism
==Notes==
==References==
Category:Arguments
Category:Fallacious arguments
One Law for All

One Law for All is a group dedicated to opposing Sharia courts in Britain (and, by extension, any religious courts).One Law for All: About The spokesperson is Maryam Namazie (Central Committee member of the Worker-communist Party of Iran).
It argues that Sharia is "arbitrary and discriminatory against women and children in particular," and says that "women are often pressured by their families into going to these courts and adhering to unfair decisions... refusal to settle a dispute in a Sharia court can give rise to threats and intimidation, or at best being ostracised". This argument disregards the fact that coercing someone into an arbitration contract is already illegal pretty much anywhere in the civilized world, thus making this a failure to report the coercion, rather than a failure in the system of arbitration itself. But this does not make any such coercion less damaging. "The existence of a parallel legal system that is denying a large section of the British population their fundamental human rights is scandalous," says spokesperson Maryam Namazi (who is apparently unaware that courts of arbitration are private, and thus not a "parallel legal system"). "Our findings show that it is essential to abolish all religious courts in the UK."
In 2011, the organisation published a report entitled Enemies Not Allies: The Far-Right, which stresses the need to "discriminate between genuine allies and those who would arrogate [anti-Sharia and Islamist] efforts for their own ends, namely the far-right, which has attempted to hijack legitimate criticism of Islamism to further its racist agenda."One Law for All: Enemies Not Allies - The Far-Right Page 6 The report focuses mainly on the British National Party, English Defence League, and Stop the Islamisation of Europe, and concludes that "Though the far-right appears to target Islamism, they are two sides of the same coin," pointing out that both promote misogyny, homophobia, antisemitism, and violence, and make use of religious imagery and victim status.One Law for All: Enemies Not Allies - The Far-Right Pages 62-6
Robert Spencer of the blog Jihad Watch objected to this report, dismissing Maryam Namazie as "a Marxist antisemite who… has attacked Israel and spread Palestinian jihad propaganda on numerous occasions" and arguing that the report misrepresented his views.Jihad Watch Adam Barnett, who co-wrote the report, penned a response to Spencer further questioning his views on the treatment of Muslims.One Law for All: Response to Robert Spencer on Enemies Not Allies - The Far-Right 16 August 2011
==See also==
*Secularism
==External links==
*Official site
==References==
Category:Organizations
Category:Islam
Category:Criticism of Islam
Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance

Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance (at religioustolerance.org) is a generally unbiased resource of information about religion and related topics. The site provides analyses of subjects such as atheism, Islam and Satanism. The site is a hybrid between liberal and centrist policies. Most of the content on the site is written by Bruce A. Robinson.http://www.religioustolerance.org/credentials.htm Robinson is a retired engineer, and is an agnostic and a Unitarian Universalist.Who are our web site's authors, & what are their credentials?
Its purpose is to provide "accurate religious information"http://www.religioustolerance.org/purpose.htm and "information on dozens of "hot" religious topics", to reveal "religious fraud, hatred and misinformation", and to "promote religious tolerance". This perhaps makes the site the very antithesis of Conservapedia.
Its coverage of Scientologyhttp://www.religioustolerance.org/scientol.htm runs the Church of Scientology line largely unaltered, and is recommended in turn by Scientology.e.g., http://www.bonafidescientology.org/religious.htm This is not as bad as it was in the late 1990s,http://www.xenu-directory.net/opinions/hill-20070109-ocrt.html but should still be approached with caution.
The site has received hate mail and death threats.http://www.religioustolerance.org/comments.htm
As of 2023 the website appears to be offline.
==External links==
*OCRT Website (Dead link as of 2023.)
==References==
Category:Websites