waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
bissda@saturn.wwc.edu (DAN LAWRENCE BISSELL) writes:  >	First I want to start right out and say that I'm a Christian.  It   I _know_ I shouldn't get involved, but...   :-)  [bit deleted]  >	The book says that Jesus was either a liar, or he was crazy ( a  >modern day Koresh) or he was actually who he said he was. >	Some reasons why he wouldn't be a liar are as follows.  Who would  >die for a lie?  Wouldn't people be able to tell if he was a liar?  People  >gathered around him and kept doing it, many gathered from hearing or seeing  >someone who was or had been healed.  Call me a fool, but I believe he did  >heal people.   >	Niether was he a lunatic.  Would more than an entire nation be drawn  >to someone who was crazy.  Very doubtful, in fact rediculous.  For example  >anyone who is drawn to David Koresh is obviously a fool, logical people see  >this right away. >	Therefore since he wasn't a liar or a lunatic, he must have been the  >real thing.    Righto, DAN, try this one with your Cornflakes...  The book says that Muhammad was either a liar, or he was crazy ( a  modern day Mad Mahdi) or he was actually who he said he was. Some reasons why he wouldn't be a liar are as follows.  Who would  die for a lie?  Wouldn't people be able to tell if he was a liar?  People  gathered around him and kept doing it, many gathered from hearing or seeing  how his son-in-law made the sun stand still.  Call me a fool, but I believe  he did make the sun stand still.   Niether was he a lunatic.  Would more than an entire nation be drawn  to someone who was crazy.  Very doubtful, in fact rediculous.  For example  anyone who is drawn to the Mad Mahdi is obviously a fool, logical people see  this right away. Therefore since he wasn't a liar or a lunatic, he must have been the  real thing.    --
In article <C5rLyz.4Mt@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>, bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes: |> This is fascinating. Atheists argue for abortion,  Prove it.  I am an atheist.  It doesn't mean I am for or against abortion.  |> defend homosexuality |> as a means of population control,   An obvious effect of homosexuality is non-procreation.  That, unlike your statement, is a fact.  Please prove that (a) homosexuality is defended as  means of population control, (b) being atheist causes you to hold these beliefs.  I defend homosexuality because (a) what people do with their bodies is none of my business (b) I defend the equal rights of all humans.  Do you?  |> insist that the only values are |> biological   Define values. Prove your statement.  |> something is contardictory, it cannot exist, which in |> this case means atheists I suppose.  Prove your statement.  Electrons are waves.  Electrons are particles.  I  believe in both.  I have physical proof of both.  I have no proof of god(tm) only an ancient book.  That is not indicative of the existence of a being with omnipotence or omnipresence.  And, by your own argument, christians don't exist.   |> I would like to understand how an atheist can object to war (an |> excellent means of controlling population growth), or to capital |> punishment, I'm sorry but the logic escapes me. |> And why just capital punishment, what is being questioned here, the |> propriety of killing or of punishment? What is the basis of the |> ecomplaint? |>   First of all, your earlier statements have absolutely nothing to do with your question.  Why did you post them?  To show that athiests, besides not existing (your view), are more humane than christians/other religions?   Secondly I am very much for the control of population growth.  The logic that you cannot grasp indicates ignorance of contraception. But of course, this is 'outlawed' (sometimes literally) by religion since if it can't create more followers, it will die.  I |> Bill |>
Our Lord and Savior David Keresh has risen!   	He has been seen alive!   	Spread the word!     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <1993Apr5.011255.7295@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> stank@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Stan Krieger) writes: >Now can we please use rec.scouting for the purpose for which it was >established?  Clearly we netnews voters decided that we did not want to >provide a scouting newsgroup to give fringe groups a forum for their >anti-societal political views.  Ok, this is the only thing I will comment on from Stan at this time... part of this forum we call rec.scouting is for policy discussions and related topics.  This is a policy discussion, and involves related  topics.  this is not a "fringe" group discussion.  obviously, it  engenders strong feelings from all sides of the issues at hand.  Wether a particular view is anti-societal or not is your opinion,  and yours alone, don't try to make it seem otherwise.  If you do not wish to engage in this discussion, use a kill file.  If you wish to continue in this discussion, please do so, knowing  full well the implications that apply. I know for myself that I plan on continuing with the discussion when  i have the wish to have input.  I for one am tired of people trying to  say that this is not a matter significant for this group!  It is, and  quite so. Especially for those of us who feel the impact more closely.
In article <C4y976.MLr@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu> bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes:  >Could you explain what any of this pertains to? Is this a position >statement on something or typing practice? And why are you using my >name, do you think this relates to anything I've said and if so, what. > >Bill   Could you explain what any of the above pertains to? Is this a position  statement on something or typing practice?  --          "Satan and the Angels do not have freewill.           They do what god tells them to do. "
In article <1pieg7INNs09@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes: |> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: |>  |> >Now along comes Mr Keith Schneider and says "Here is an "objective |> >moral system".  And then I start to ask him about the definitions |> >that this "objective" system depends on, and, predictably, the whole |> >thing falls apart. |>  |> It only falls apart if you attempt to apply it.  This doesn't mean that |> an objective system can't exist.  It just means that one cannot be |> implemented.  It's not the fact that it can't exist that bothers me.   It's  the fact that you don't seem to be able to define it.  If I wanted to hear about indefinable things that might in principle exist as long as you don't think about them too carefully, I could ask a religious person, now couldn't I?
halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) writes:  >>I think an objective morality does exist, but that most flavors of morality >>are only approximations to it.  Once again, a natural or objective morality >>is fairly easily defined, as long as you have a goal in mind--that is, what >>is the purpose of this morality. >Maybe I'm not quite getting what you mean by this, but I think objective  >morality is an oxymoron.  By definition, it seems, any _goal_ oriented  >issue like this is subjective by nature.  I don't get how you're using >the word objective.  But, the goal need not be a subjective one.  For instance, the goal of natural morality is the propogation of a species, perhaps.  It wasn't really until the more intelligent animals came along that some revisions to this were necessary.  Intelligent animals have different needs than the others, and hence a morality suited to them must be a bit more complicated than "the law of the jungle."  I don't think that self-actualization is so subjective as you might think.  And, by objectivity, I am assuming that the ideals of any such system could be carried out completely.
In article <C5L1Fv.H9r@ra.nrl.navy.mil> khan@itd.itd.nrl.navy.mil (Umar Khan) writes: >How would a man of 7th Century Arabia have known >what *not to include* in the Holy Qur'an (assuming he had authored >it)?   >    So now we're judging the Qur'an by what's not in it?      How many mutton headed arguments am I going to have to wade   through today?  >Lots of other books have been written on this subject.  Those >books can speak far more eloquently than I.    One would hope.  /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\   Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM   They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away, and sank Manhattan out at sea.
battin@cyclops.iucf.indiana.edu (Laurence Gene Battin) writes: >Apart from the suggestion that appeared in the letters column of >Skeptical Inquirer recently, has there been any further mention >about a possible Asimov commemorative stamp?  If this idea hasn't >been followed up, does anyone know what needs to be done to get >this to happen?  I think that its a great idea.  Should we start a >petition or something?  I believe that there's a 10 year period from time of death until a person can be on a commemorative stamp.  It was broken once for Lyndon Johnson (I think) but other than that it has held for awhile.  Of course, we can still start now -- the Elvis stamp was petitioned for ages and things really moved once it got past the 10 year anniversary of his death.
In article <1993Apr21.171807.16785@bnr.ca> (Rashid) writes:  >In article <115694@bu.edu>, jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) wrote:  >> I think many reading this group would also benefit by knowing how >> deviant the view _as I've articulated it above_ (which may not be >> the true view of Khomeini) is from the basic principles of Islam.  >> So that the non-muslim readers of this group will see how far from  >> the simple basics of Islam such views are on the face of them. And  >> if they are _not_ in contradiction with the basics of Islam, how  >> subtle such issues are and how it seems sects exist in Islam while  >> they are explicitly proscribed by the Qur'an.  >Discussing it here is fine by me. Shall we start a new thread called, >say, "Infallibility in Islam" and move the discussion there?  I think this should be illuminating to all. Let me make a first suggestion. When Arabic words, especially technical ones, become of use  let us define them for those, especially atheists, to whom they may not be terribly familiar. Please also note that though I did initially refer to Khomeini as a heretic for what I understood to be a claim -- rejected  by you since -- of personal infallibility, I withdraw this as a basis for such a statement. I conditionally retain this reference in regard to Khomeini's advocacy of the thesis of the infallibility of the  so-called "Twelve Imams," which is in clear conflict with the Qur'an  in that it places the Twelve Imams in a category of behavior and example higher than that of the Muhammad, in that the Qur'an shows that the Prophet was clearly fallible, as well as (it appears, given your abstruse theological statment regarding the "natures"  of the Twelve Imams) placing them in a different metaphysical category than the  remainder of humanity, with the possible exception of Muhammad,  something which verges on the sin of association.  >As salam a-laikum  Alaikum Wassalam,
In article <16BB6B6FE.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:  SSAUYET@eagle.wesleyan.edu (SCOTT D. SAUYET) writes:  >Okay, how about >                  Scott "Can anybody hear me?" Sauyet >                       ssauyet@eagel.wesleyan.edu   	Could you speak up? I can't hear you....    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <1993Apr3.153552.4334@mac.cc.macalstr.edu>, acooper@mac.cc.macalstr.edu writes: |> In article <1pint5$1l4@fido.asd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes > > Well, Germany was hardly the ONLY country to discriminate against the  > Jews, although it has the worst reputation because it did the best job  > of expressing a general European dislike of them.  This should not turn  > into a debate on antisemitism, but you should also point out that Luther's >  antiSemitism was based on religious grounds, while Hitler's was on racial  > grounds, and Wagnmer's on aesthetic grounds.  Just blanketing the whole  > group is poor analysis, even if they all are bigots.  I find these to be intriguing remarks.   Could you give us a bit more explanation here?   For example, which religion is anti-semitic, and which aesthetic?
I just received some new information regarding the issue of  BCCI and whether it is an Islamic bank etc.  I am now about to post it under the heading  "BCCI".  Look for it there!
dfuller@portal.hq.videocart.com (Dave Fuller) writes: >   Nice attempt Chris . . . verrry close. >  >   You missed the conspiracy by 1 step. Joseph knew who knocked her up. > He couldn't let it be known that somebody ELSE got ol' Mary prego. That > wouldn't do well for his popularity in the local circles. So what  > happened is that she was feeling guilty, he was feeling embarrassed, and > THEY decided to improve both of their images on what could have otherwise > been the downfall for both. Clever indeed. Come to think of it . . . I > have gained a new respect for the couple. Maybe Joseph and Mary should > receive all of the praise being paid to jesus.  Lucky for them that the baby didn't have any obvious deformities!  I could just see it now: Mary gets pregnant out of wedlock so to save face she and Joseph say that it was God that got her pregnant and then the baby turns out to be deformed, or even worse, stillborn!  They'd have a lot of explaining to do.... :-)  > Dave "Buckminster" Fuller > How is that one 'o keeper of the nicknames ?
In article <199304041750.AA17104@kepler.unh.edu> dmn@kepler.unh.edu (...until kings become philosophers or philosophers become kings) writes: > > > >     Recently, RAs have been ordered (and none have resisted or cared about >it apparently) to post a religious flyer entitled _The Soul Scroll: Thoughts >on religion, spirituality, and matters of the soul_ on the inside of bathroom >stall doors. (at my school, the University of New Hampshire) It is some sort >of newsletter assembled by a Hall Director somewhere on campus. [most of post deleted] > >  Please respond as soon as possible. I'd like these religious postings to >stop, NOW!  > >   >Thanks, > >  Dana > >        >         There is an easy way out.... Post the flyers on the stall doors, but add at the bottom, in nice large capitals,        EMERGENCY TOILET PAPER  :)
In article <1993Apr3.081052.11292@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>, darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes: |> There has been some discussion on the pros and cons about sex outside of |> marriage.   ... |>  |> Where is the evidence for my opinions?  At the moment, there are just |> generalities I can cite.  For example, I read that in the 20th century, |> the percentage of youth (and people in general) who suffer from |> depression has been steadily climbing in Western societies (probably |> what I was reading referred particularly to the USA).  Similarly, one |> can detect a trend towards greater occurrence of sex outside of marriage |> in this century in Western societies -- particularly with the "sexual |> revolution" of the 60's, but even before that I think (otherwise the |> "sexual revolution" of the 60's would not have been possible), |> particularly with the gradual weakening of Christianity and consequently |> Christian moral teachings against sex outside of marriage.  I propose |> that these two trends -- greater level of general depression in society |> (and other psychological problems) and greater sexual promiscuity -- are |> linked, with the latter being a prime cause of the former.  I cannot |> provide any evidence beyond this at this stage, but the whole thesis |> seems very reasonable to me and I request that people ponder upon it. |>  |>  Fred Rice <-- a Muslim, giving his point of view. |>  darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au     I think this is a big leap sex->depression.  One example is myself, where no sex->depression :)  But, seriously 1) promiscuity is on a decline, depression is not and 2) it might be more reasonable to say  depression->promiscuity.  I think depression is more likely to come from emotional problems (relationships, family, job, friends) and promiscuity is used as an escape. Since I see marriage as a civil and religious bond rather than an emotional bond, I don't see a problem with sex before (not outside of) marriage so long as you have the same commitment and devotion as what is expected from a married couple.  Of course, this is just  my opinion.
[reply to timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu (Bake Timmons]   >...the same kind of ignorance is demonstrated in just about every post >in this newsgroup.  For instance, generalizations about Christianity >are popular.   Which newsgroup have you been reading?  The few anti-Christian posts are virtually all in response to some Christian posting some "YOU WILL ALL BURN IN HELL" kind of drivel.   >I'm a soft atheist (courtesy of the FAQ), but even I know enough about >the Bible to see that it repeatedly warns of false prophets preaching >in the name of God.   Bake, it is transparently obvious that you are a theist pretending to be an atheist.  You probably think you are very clever, but we see this all the time.   >But the possibilities of creator and eternity carry with them too much >emotional power to dismiss merely on the basis of this line.   But of course *you* have dismissed them because you are an atheist, right?   >...just like any other religion, hard atheism is a faith.   In other words, you *didn't* read the FAQ after all.
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:  >Humans have "gone somewhat beyond" what, exactly?    In one thread >you're telling us that natural morality is what animals do to >survive, and in this thread you are claiming that an omniscient >being can "definitely" say what is right and what is wrong.   So >what does this omniscient being use for a criterion?   The long- >term survival of the human species, or what?  Well, that's the question, isn't it?  The goals are probably not all that obvious.  We can set up a few goals, like happiness and liberty and the golden rule, etc.  But these goals aren't inherent.  They have to be defined before an objective system is possible.  >How does omniscient map into "definitely" being able to assign >"right" and "wrong" to actions?  It is not too difficult, one you have goals in mind, and absolute knoweldge of everyone's intent, etc.  >>Now you are letting an omniscient being give information to me.  This >>was not part of the original premise. >Well, your "original premises" have a habit of changing over time, >so perhaps you'd like to review it for us, and tell us what the >difference is between an omniscient being be able to assign "right" >and "wrong" to actions, and telling us the result, is.   Omniscience is fine, as long as information is not given away.  Isn't this the resolution of the free will problem?  An interactive omniscient being changes the situation.  >>Which type of morality are you talking about?  In a natural sense, it >>is not at all immoral to harm another species (as long as it doesn't >>adversely affect your own, I guess). >I'm talking about the morality introduced by you, which was going to >be implemented by this omniscient being that can "definitely" assign >"right" and "wrong" to actions. >You tell us what type of morality that is.  Well, I was speaking about an objective system in general.  I didn't mention a specific goal, which would be necessary to determine the morality of an action.
With the Southern Baptist Convention convening this June to consider the charges that Freemasonry is incompatible with christianity, I thought the following quotes by Mr. James Holly, the Anti-Masonic Flag Carrier, would amuse you all...       The following passages are exact quotes from "The Southern  Baptist Convention and Freemasonry" by James L. Holly, M.D., President of Mission and Ministry To Men, Inc., 550 N 10th St., Beaumont, TX  77706.         The inside cover of the book states: "Mission & Ministry to Men,  Inc. hereby grants permission for the reproduction of part or all of  this booklet with two provisions: one, the material is not changed and two, the source is identified." I have followed these provisions.          "Freemasonry is one of the allies of the Devil" Page iv.         "The issue here is not moderate or conservative, the issue is God and the Devil" Page vi."         "It is worthwhile to remember that the formulators of public  school education in America were Freemasons" Page 29.         "Jesus Christ never commanded toleration as a motive for His  disciples, and toleration is the antithesis of the Christian message." Page 30.         "The central dynamic of the Freemason drive for world unity  through fraternity, liberty and equality is toleration. This is seen  in the writings of the 'great' writers of Freemasonry". Page 31.         "He [Jesus Christ] established the most sectarian of all possible  faiths." Page 37.         "For narrowness and sectarianism, there is no equal to the Lord  Jesus Christ". Page 40.         "What seems so right in the interest of toleration and its  cousins-liberty, equality and fraternity-is actually one of the  subtlest lies of the 'father of lies.'" Page 40.         "The Southern Baptist Convention has many churches which were  founded in the Lodge and which have corner stones dedicated by the  Lodge. Each of these churches should hold public ceremonies of  repentance and of praying the blood and the Name of the Lord Jesus  Christ over the church and renouncing the oaths taken at the  dedication of the church and/or building." Page 53-54.
snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:  >If Saddam believed in God, he would pray five times a >day. > >Communism, on the other hand, actually committed genocide in the name of >atheism, as Lenin and Stalin have said themselves.  These two were die >hard atheist (Look! A pun!) and believed in atheism as an integral part >of communism.  No, Bobby.  Stalin killed millions in the name of Socialism.  Atheism was a characteristic of the Lenin-Stalin version of Socialism, nothing more. Another characteristic of Lenin-Stalin Socialism was the centralization of food distribution.  Would you therefore say that Stalin and Lenin killed millions in the name of rationing bread?  Of course not.   >More horrible deaths resulted from atheism than anything else.  In earlier posts you stated that true (Muslim) believers were incapable of evil.  I suppose if you believe that, you could reason that no one has ever been killed in the name of religion.  What a perfect world you live in, Bobby.     >One of the reasons that you are atheist is that you limit God by giving >God a form.  God does not have a "face".  Bobby is referring to a rather obscure law in _The Good Atheist's  Handbook_:  Law XXVI.A.3: Give that which you do not believe in a face.    You must excuse us, Bobby.  When we argue against theism, we usually argue against the Christian idea of God.  In the realm of Christianity, man was created in God's image.
In article <1pic4lINNrau@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes: |> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes: |>  |> >My personal objection is that I find capital punishment to be |> >cruel and unusual punishment under all circumstances. |>  |> It can be painless, so it isn't cruel.  And, it has occurred frequently |> since the dawn of time, so it is hardly unusual.  Koff!  You mean that as long as I put you to sleep first, I can kill you without being cruel?  This changes everything.
west@next02.wam.umd.edu (Brian West) writes: [ deleted ] >A similar analogy can be made with glass. For those of you who don't  >know, glass is a liquid (go ask your science teacher) and DOES flow. [ deleted ]    If your science teacher tells you glass is a liquid, try to get a different science teacher B^).  Glass is a supercooled fluid, it is not a liquid (except at very high temperatures).  The definition of liquid includes "readily takes the form of its container".  Let's try to be more accurate here.  We don't want people to think we're creationists now do we?