waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
boyd@acsu.buffalo.edu (Daniel F Boyd) writes: :  : If the Bible is such incredible proof of Christianity, then why aren't : the Muslims or the Hindus convinced? :  : If the Qur'an is such incredible proof of Islam, then why aren't the : Hindus or the Christians convinced?  If God exists, why aren't atheists convinced?  --
In article <C5uuL0.n1C@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu> bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes: >Many of the atheists posting here argue against their own parody of >religion; they create some ridiculous caricature of a religion and >then attack the believers within that religion and the religion itself >as ridiculous. By their own devices, they establish a new religion, a >mythology.   	That is not an "atheism mythology" in any sense of the word. "Religious paradoy" would be significantly more appropriate.  	The 2nd part is rendered null and void by the simple fact that I do know several "strong" atheists. I am sure that others do. I myself am "strong" in the sense that I find the standard concept of God without any meaning. Any attempt to bring meaning either results in the destruction of  the viability of language, or in internal self contradiction.   	The concept of strong atheism is not just a whimsical fantasy. They,  and I, exist.  	Your strawman is pointless and weak.  ---  Private note to Jennifer Fakult.          "This post may contain one or more of the following:          sarcasm, cycnicism, irony, or humor. Please be aware           of this possibility and do not allow yourself to be           confused and/or thrown for a loop. If in doubt, assume          all of the above.
bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes: >>Robert Beauchine wrote: >: RB>   No, that's praying on the young.  Preying on the young comes >: RB>   later, when the bright eyed little altar boy finds out what the >: RB>   priest really wears under that chasible. >Does this statement further the atheist cause in some way, surely it's >not intended as wit ...    Surely it was intended as wit.  By the way, which "atheist cause" were you referring to, Bill?
In article <C5v2Mr.1z1@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu> bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes: >The myth to which I refer is the convoluted counterfeit athiests have >created to make religion appear absurd. Rather than approach religion >(including Christainity) in a rational manner and debating its claims >-as the are stated-, atheists concoct outrageous parodies and then >hold the religious accountable for beliefs they don't have. What is >more accurately oxymoric is the a term like, reasonable atheist.  	1) They are religious parodies, NOT atheistic paradies.  	2) Please substantiate that they are parodies, and are outrageous. 	   Specifically, why is the IUP any more outrageous than many  	   religions?  ---  Private note to Jennifer Fakult.          "This post may contain one or more of the following:          sarcasm, cycnicism, irony, or humor. Please be aware           of this possibility and do not allow yourself to be           confused and/or thrown for a loop. If in doubt, assume          all of the above.
mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes: > I looked back at this, and asked some questions of various people and > got the following information which I had claimed and you pooh-poohed. > The US has not sold Iraq any arms.  What about the land mines which have already been mentioned?  > other countries (like Kuwait).  Information is hard to prove.  You are > claiming that the US sold information?  Prove it.  [...]  Information > is hard to prove, almost certainly if the US did sell information, then that > fact is classified, and you can't prove it.  Oh, very neat.  Dismiss everything I say unless I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt something which you yourself admit I can never prove to your satisfaction.  Thanks, I'll stick to squaring circles.
In article <healta.153.735242337@saturn.wwc.edu>, healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy) writes: >  >  > #12) The 2 cheribums are on the Ark of the Covenant.  When God said make no  > graven image, he was refering to idols, which were created to be worshipped.  > The Ark of the Covenant wasn't wrodhipped and only the high priest could  > enter the Holy of Holies where it was kept once a year, on the Day of  > Atonement.  I am not familiar with, or knowledgeable about the original language, but I believe there is a word for "idol" and that the translator would have used the word "idol" instead of "graven image" had the original said "idol."  So I think you're wrong here, but then again I could be too.  I just suggesting a way to determine whether the interpretation you offer is correct.
In article <1qid04$fct@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes: > >I don't see anything special about theism in general that makes it a  >particular hazard (more so than say, stupidity, anarchy, or patriotism).    >Of course, it depends on the religion, but I see nothing about believing  >in gods that in and of itself entails or even promotes xenophobia, genocide,  >etc.      If the emphasis is on the "in general", then of course you're   correct, since you haven't really said anything.  If we restrict   our observations to practiced religions, there are lots of   examples of god mandated genocide.  Just ask the Canaanites.  The   point is that if you believe in a god, and if you believe he has   ordered you to eliminate an entire race, you will likely make the   attempt.  After all, if it was OK in the past, it could surely be   OK in the present.   /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\   Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM   They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away, and sank Manhattan out at sea.
In article <1993Apr16.001326.15820@cs.ucla.edu>, Brad Pierce <pierce@cs.ucla.edu> writes:  >... > The bedrock of "spiritual" unreason is the belief that resonant, yet  but theology is full of reason even if it is, as we believe, based on false premises etc etc.  > ill-defined, terms, e.g., "spirit", "transcendental", "mind", "self", > "consciousness", "ultimate reality", "soul", "elan vital", etc. have > meaning. Sadly, adherents of "spiritual" movements are seldom satisfied  hold on there: no meaning to "consciousness" or "mind" or "self"?!  > with this harmless illogicality; they seem inexorably drawn to a belief  what illogicality?  > in "the primacy of the spiritual and transcendental over the material > and empirical," i.e., the primacy of pipe dreams, jabberwocky and > illusion over facts, science and reason.  since when is, for instance, (non-behaviourist) psychology a pipe dream?  Surely the major purpose of the science of psychology is to understand the workings of the mind.  > All creatures, all feelings, all thoughts, all perceptions, all > processes and all phenomena are manifestations of the mundane, i.e., > matter, energy, space and time. Those who believe otherwise, albeit > some do not supplicate "God", are not atheists.  "manifestations of the mundane" sounds rather transcendental to me. In fact "matter", "energy", "space" and "time" are well measured but mysterious concepts.   Does an atheist really have to believe in your reductionism or be cast out as not following the true faith?!
In article <1993Apr10.130112.25440@bradford.ac.uk> L.Newnham@bradford.ac.uk (Leonard Newnham) writes:  >Gregg Jaeger (jaeger@buphy.bu.edu) wrote:  >>>And no, in Western countries, it isn't a "legal" concept  >>>at all, so it's not the slightest bit pertinent to the >>>topic, which is a British author living in the United  >>>Kingdom under the protection of British law.  >>Ah, yes, I keep forgetting, governments are superior entities to >>religious organizations. Forgive me -- the gun is the higher law.  >This is degenerating to 'Zumder logic.  Of course governments are >superior entities, they are elected by the people, whereas religious >leaders certainly are not.  Perhaps not in Christianity, but in Islam the choice of religious leaders is to be made by the people. So much for your superiority argument.   >  Those who the people trust to make the law >obviously represents the higher law.  That is democracy.  Democracy is a basic element of Islam. Learn that one!  Ever notice that the so-called "fundamentalists" in Algeria who are being repressed by the secular government won in free and democratic elections.
Mike McAngus (mam@mouse.cmhnet.org) wrote:   >By the way, news.announce.newusers has an article (can't remember which  >one) that recommends reading a newsgroup for 1 month before posting.    >This makes sense because you get an idea who the players are and what   >the current discussions are about.   >Am I the only one who followed that advice?  No, I spent a month just reading, too, mainly because I did not know much about the way atheists think. I even printed out the FAQs and discussed it with a friend before I started posting.  Alt.atheism deals with religious issues (more appropriately, lack of religious beliefs), which are by their very nature very controversial. It makes sense to read what is being discussed and how just to make sure you are not repeating something others have said better.  Petri
In article <116172@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:   >> I'm not in a position to say, since I know nothing >>  about the situation.  That does not, in my estimation, qualify me >>  as having my head up my ass. > > >Bob, I never accused you of having your head up your ass! It takes >me quite some time in dealing with someone before accusing them of >having their head up their ass. I was accusing the original poster >(Benedikt, I believe) of being so impaired. >     After insult, Gregg resorts to lies:   In article <115670@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:   >>  Could you maybe flesh it out just a bit?  Or did I miss the full >>  grandeur of it's content by virtue of my blinding atheism? > >You may be having difficulty seeing the light because you >have your head up your ass. I suggest making sure this is >not the case before posting again. >
In article <115686@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:  >No, I say religious law applies to those who are categorized as >belonging to the religion when event being judged applies. This   	Who does the categorizing?  	 ---      " I'd Cheat on Hillary Too."
You know, it just occurred to me today that this whole Christian thing can be blamed solely on Mary.  So, she's married to Joseph.  She gets knocked up.  What do you think ol' Joe will do if he finds she's been getting around?  So Mary comes up with this ridiculous story about God making her pregnant.  Actually, it can't be all THAT ridiculous, considering the number of people that believe it.  Anyway, she never tells anyone the truth, and even tells poor little Jesus that he's hot shit, the Son of God.  Everyone else tells him this too, since they've bought Mary's story.  So, what does Mary actually turn out to be?  An adultress and a liar, and the cause of mankind's greatest folly...  Just my recently-minted two cents.  Chris
In article <timmbake.735196560@mcl> timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu (Bake Timmons) writes: > >Nah.  I will encourage people to learn about atheism to see how little atheists >have up their sleeves.  Whatever I might have suspected is actually quite  Riddle me this.  If a god(s) exist why on earth should we grovel?  Why on earth should we give a damm at all?  What evidence do you have that if such a creature(s) exist it deserves anything beyond mild admiration or sheer hatred for what it/they have done in the past (whichever god(s) you care to pick).  That is assuming any records of their actions are correct.  Religon offers a bliss bubble of self contained reality which is seperate from the physical world.  Any belief system can leave you in such a state and so can drugs.  God(s) are not a requirement.  Only if you remove such useless tappestry can you build a set of morals to build a society upon. It is that or keep on exterminating those who don't believe (or converting them).   - Eric  NEW VIRUSES:
In article <1pj2b6$aaa@fido.asd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: > In article <1993Apr3.033446.10669@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes: > |> In article <1pint5$1l4@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: > |> > > |> Deletions... > |> Er, Jon, what Ken said was: > |>  > |>   There have previously been people like you in your country.  Unfortunately, > |>                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > |>   most Jews did not survive. > |>  > |> That sure sounds to me like Ken is accusing the guy of being a Nazi. >  > Hitler and the Nazis didn't spring fully formed from the forehead > of Athena.   They didn't invent anti-semitism.   They built on a  > foundation of anti-semitism that was already present in Germany.    > This foundation of anti-semitism was laid down, not by the Nazis,  > but by the people I listed, and also by hundreds of years of unthinking,  > knee-jerk bigotry, on the part of perfectly ordinary people, and, of > course, their pastors and priests. >  > What we have to worry about today is not whether some Hollywood > Hitler in a black uniform is going to come striding onto the German > stage in one unprepared step, but whether those same bedrock foundations > of anti-semitism are being laid down, little by little, in Germany, > as we speak. >  > And if so, they will be laid down, not by Hitlers and Himmlers, who > will come later, but by "people like" the poster in question.   The > people who think that casual anti-semitism is acceptable, or even fun. >                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >  Deletions... > I did.     Now may I suggest, with the greatest possible respect, that > you go read some history? >  > jon.  So, you consider the german poster's remark anti-semitic?  Perhaps you imply that anyone in Germany who doesn't agree with israely policy in a nazi?  Pray tell, how does it even qualify as "casual anti-semitism"?  If the term doesn't apply, why then bring it up?  Your own bigotry is shining through.   --
In article <115437@bu.edu>, jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) wrote: > As I have stated on a parallel thread, I am not an anarchist, nor is > Islam anarchist. Therefore the UK should have control over itself.  > However, this does not change the fact that it is possible for citizens > of the UK residing within the UK to be in violation of Islamic law.  This is an interesting notion -- and one I'm scared of. In my case I'm a Finnish citizen, I live in USA, and I have to conform to the US laws. However, the Finnish government is not actively checking out what I'm doing in this country, in other words checking out if I conform to the Finnish laws.  However, Islamic law seems to be a 'curse' that is following you everywhere in the world. Shades of 1984, eh?  Cheers, Kent
Benedikt Rosenau writes:  >And what about that revelation thing, Charley?  If you're talking about this intellectual engagement of revelation, well, it's obviously a risk one takes.  >Many people say that the concept of metaphysical and religious knowledge >is contradictive.  I'm not an objectivist, so I'm not particularly impressed with problems of conceptualization.  The problem in this case is at least as bad as that of trying to explain quantum mechanics and relativity in the terms of ordinary experience.  One can get some rough understanding, but the language is, from the perspective of ordinary phenomena, inconsistent, and from the perspective of what's being described, rather inexact (to be charitable).  An analogous situation (supposedly) obtains in metaphysics; the problem is that the "better" descriptive language is not available.  >And in case it holds reliable information, can you show how you establish >that?  This word "reliable" is essentially meaningless in the context-- unless you can show how reliability can be determined.
bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:  >>I think that about 70% (or so) people approve of the >>death penalty, even realizing all of its shortcomings.  Doesn't this make >>it reasonable?  Or are *you* the sole judge of reasonability? >Aside from revenge, what merits do you find in capital punishment?  Are we talking about me, or the majority of the people that support it? Anyway, I think that "revenge" or "fairness" is why most people are in favor of the punishment.  If a murderer is going to be punished, people that think that he should "get what he deserves."  Most people wouldn't think it would be fair for the murderer to live, while his victim died.  >Revenge?  Petty and pathetic.  Perhaps you think that it is petty and pathetic, but your views are in the minority.  >We have a local televised hot topic talk show that very recently >did a segment on capital punishment.  Each and every advocate of >the use of this portion of our system of "jurisprudence" cited the >main reason for supporting it:  "That bastard deserved it".  True >human compassion, forgiveness, and sympathy.  Where are we required to have compassion, forgiveness, and sympathy?  If someone wrongs me, I will take great lengths to make sure that his advantage is removed, or a similar situation is forced upon him.  If someone kills another, then we can apply the golden rule and kill this person in turn. Is not our entire moral system based on such a concept?  Or, are you stating that human life is sacred, somehow, and that it should never be violated?  This would sound like some sort of religious view.   >>I mean, how reasonable is imprisonment, really, when you think about it? >>Sure, the person could be released if found innocent, but you still >>can't undo the imiprisonment that was served.  Perhaps we shouldn't >>imprision people if we could watch them closely instead.  The cost would >>probably be similar, especially if we just implanted some sort of >>electronic device. >Would you rather be alive in prison or dead in the chair?    Once a criminal has committed a murder, his desires are irrelevant.  And, you still have not answered my question.  If you are concerned about the death penalty due to the possibility of the execution of an innocent, then why isn't this same concern shared with imprisonment.  Shouldn't we, by your logic, administer as minimum as punishment as possible, to avoid violating the liberty or happiness of an innocent person?
In article <16BB112DFC.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes: >From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) >Subject: Re: free moral agency and Jeff Clark >Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1993 20:28:27 GMT >In article <healta.136.734813153@saturn.wwc.edu> >healta@saturn.wwc.edu (TAMMY R HEALY) writes: >  >(Deletion) >>You also said,"Why did millions suffer for what Adam and Ee did?  Seems a >>pretty sick way of going about creating a universe..." >> >>I'm gonna respond by giving a small theology lesson--forgive me, I used >>to be a theology major. >>First of all, I believe that this planet is involved in a cosmic struggle-- >>"the Great Controversy betweed Christ and Satan" (i borrowed a book title). >>God has to consider the interests of the entire universe when making >>decisions. >(Deletion) >  >An universe it has created. By the way, can you tell me why it is less >tyrannic to let one of one's own creatures do what it likes to others? >By your definitions, your god has created Satan with full knowledge what >would happen - including every choice of Satan. >  >Can you explain us what Free Will is, and how it goes along with omniscience? >Didn't your god know everything that would happen even before it created the >world? Why is it concerned about being a tyrant when noone would care if >everything was fine for them? That the whole idea comes from the possibility >to abuse power, something your god introduced according to your description? >  >  >By the way, are you sure that you have read the FAQ? Especially the part >about preaching? >   Benedikt  I don't feel that I'm preaching. I'm just trying to answer people's  questions and talking about my religion, my beliefs. When it comes to what I post, I don't do it with the intent of converting  anyone.  I don't expect for the atheists in this newsgroup to take what I  say with a grain of salt if they so wish. I just state what I beleve, they ask me how I believeit and why and we all  go on.  If that's preaching, then I'm soory and I'll get off the soapbox.
In article <1pigidINNsot@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:  >mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes: >>As for rape, surely there the burden of guilt is solely on the rapist? > >Not so.  If you are thrown into a cage with a tiger and get mauled, do you >blame the tiger?  	A human has greater control over his/her actions, than a  predominately instictive tiger.  	A proper analogy would be:  	If you are thrown into a cage with a person and get mauled, do you  blame that person?  	Yes. [ providing that that person was in a responsible frame of  mind, eg not clinicaly insane, on PCB's, etc. ]  ---          "One thing that relates is among Navy men that get tatoos that          say "Mom", because of the love of their mom.  It makes for more          virile men."          Bobby Mozumder  ( snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu )         April 4, 1993
In article <madhausC5rFqo.9qL@netcom.com> madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes: > >"Clam" Bake Timmons = Bill "Shit Stirrer Connor" >    Sorry, gotta disagree with you on this one Maddi (not the   resemblence to Bill.  The nickname).    I prefer "Half" Bake'd Timmons  /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\   Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM   They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away, and sank Manhattan out at sea.
In <16BB4C522.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:  >In article <1993Apr17.122329.21438@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> >darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes: >  >>>>"AND IT IS HE (GOD ALMIGHTY) WHO CREATED THE NIGHT AND THE >>>>DAY, AND THE SUN AND THE EARTH:  ALL (THE CELETIAL BODIES) >>>>SWIM ALONG, EACH IN ITS ROUNDED COURSE."  (Holy Quran 21:33) >> >>>Hmm. This agrees with the Ptolemic system of the earth at the centre, >>>with the planets orbitting round it. So Copernicus and Gallileo were >>>wrong after all! >> >>You haven't read very carefully -- if you look again, you will see that >>it doesn't say anything about what is circling what. >  >Anyway, they are not moving in circles.    Oops, sorry, my words, not the words of the Qur'an.  >Nor is there any evidence that >everything goes around in a rounded course in a general sense. Wishy- >washy statements are not scientific.  Note that "(the celestial bodies)" in the above verse is an interpolation (which is why it is in brackets) -- it is the translator's  (incorrect, IMHO) interpretation.  Here is Maurice Bucaille's translation (he studied Arabic for his research into the Qur'an and science) of this verse:  "(God is) the One Who created the night, the day, the sun and the moon. Each is travelling in an orbit with its own motion." (Qur'an :33)  The positive aspect of this verse noted by Dr. Maurice Bucaille is that while geocentrism was the commonly accepted notion at the time (and for a long time afterwards), there is no notion of geocentrism in this verse (or anywhere in the Qur'an).