waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:  >I don't expect the lion to know, or not know anything of the kind. >In fact, I don't have any evidence that lions ever consider such  >issues. >And that, of course, is why I don't think you can assign moral >significance to the instinctive behaviour of lions.  What I've been saying is that moral behavior is likely the null behavior. That is, it doesn't take much work to be moral, but it certainly does to be immoral (in some cases).  Also, I've said that morality is a remnant of evolution.  Our moral system is based on concepts well practiced in the animal kingdom.  >>So you are basically saying that you think a "moral" is an undefinable >>term, and that "moral systems" don't exist?  If we can't agree on a >>definition of these terms, then how can we hope to discuss them? >No, it's perfectly clear that I am saying that I know what a moral >is in *my* system, but that I can't speak for other people.  But, this doesn't get us anywhere.  Your particular beliefs are irrelevant unless you can share them or discuss them...
In article <735295730.25282@minster.york.ac.uk>, cjhs@minster.york.ac.uk writes: |> : Are you saying that their was a physical Adam and Eve, and that all |> : humans are direct decendents of only these two human beings.?  Then who |> : were Cain and Able's wives?  Couldn't be their sisters, because A&E |> : didn't have daughters.  Were they non-humans? |>  |> Genesis 5:4 |>  |> and the days of Adam after he begat Seth were eight hundred years, and |> he begat sons and daughters: |>  |> Felicitations -- Chris Ho-Stuart  Yeah, but these were not the wives.  The wives came from Nod, apparently a land being developed by another set of gods.
jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:  >"Will" is "self-determination".  In other words, God created conscious >beings who have the ability to choose between moral choices independently >of God.  All "will", therefore, is "free will".  The above is probably not the most representative paragraph, but I thought I'd hop on, anyway...  What strikes me as self-contradicting in the fable of Lucifer's fall - which, by the way, I seem to recall to be more speculation than based on biblical text, but my ex RCism may be showing - is that, as Benedikt pointed out, Lucifer had perfect nature, yet he had the free will to "choose" evil.  But where did that choice come from?  We know from Genesis that Eve was offered an opportunity to sin by a tempter which many assume was Satan, but how did Lucifer discover, invent, create, call the action what you will, something that God had not given origin to?  Also, where in the Bible is there mention of Lucifer's free will? We make a big fuss about mankind having free will, but it strikes me as being an after-the-fact rationalisation, and in fact, like salvation, not one that all Christians believe in identically.  At least in my mind, salvation and free will are very tightly coupled, but then my theology was Roman Catholic...  Still, how do theologian explain Lucifer's fall?  If Lucifer had perfect nature (did man?) how could he fall?  How could he execute an act that (a) contradicted his nature and (b) in effect cause evil to exist for the first time?
In article <93090.141001E62763@TRMETU.BITNET> <E62763@TRMETU.BITNET> writes: >Hi.I'm a Turkish guy who had tried atheism,satenism and buddism at some instant >s of hislife.Finally I decided on Islambecause of many facts which I intend to > write here.From my point of view,you atheists are people who has dropped to a >deep,dark well and thinking the only reality is the dusty walls of the well.But > if you had looked a little bit upward you would see the blue skies.You'dsee t >he truth but you close your eyes.Allah is the only GOD and Mohammed is his mess > ager.now,let's generate some entropy in means of theology and thermodynamics.W >hat's your point of view to the problem of the ''FIRST KISS''?That is,the first > spark which was generated for the formation of the universe.Has it formed by i >tself?You are bothering yourselves with the Big Bang but where is the first spa >rk?Please think a bit.Think and return to the only reality of the universe:ISLA >M|  Uh oh.  This looks a bit too much like Bobby's "Atheism Is False" stuff.  Are we really going to have to go through this again?  Maybe the universe is cyclical!  :)  :(
In article <1ql6jiINN5df@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes: > >The "`little' things" above were in reference to Germany, clearly.  People >said that there were similar things in Germany, but no one could name any. >They said that these were things that everyone should know, and that they >weren't going to waste their time repeating them.  Sounds to me like no one >knew, either.  I looked in some books, but to no avail.    If the Anne Frank exhibit makes it to your small little world,   take an afternoon to go see it.     /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\   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 <house.734841689@helios>, house@helios.usq.EDU.AU (ron house) writes: |> marshall@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Kevin Marshall) writes: |>  |> >healta@saturn.wwc.edu (TAMMY R HEALY) writes: |>  |> >>     you might think "oh yeah. then why didn't god destroy it in the bud  |> >>before it got to the point it is now--with millions through the  |> >>ages suffering along in life?" |> >>      the only answer i know is that satan made the claim that his way was  |> >>better than God's.  God is allowing satan the chance to prove that his way  |> >>is better than God's.  we all know what that has brought.      |>  |> >Come on!  God is allowing the wishes of one individual to supercede the |> >well-being of billions?  I seriously doubt it.  Having read the Bible |> >twice, I never got the impression that God and Satan were working in some |> >sort of cooperative arrangement. |>  |> Read the book of Job. |>   Oh, that was just a bet.
>So then, you require the same amount of evidence to believe that I  >a) own a pair of bluejeans and b) have superhuman powers?  Well, I could use the argument that some here use about "nature" and claim that you cannot have superhuman powers because you are a human; superhuman powers are beyond what a human has, and since you are a human, any powers you have are not beyond those of a human.  Hence, you cannot have superhuman powers.  Sound good to you?  Anyway, to the evidence question: it depends on the context.  In this group, since you are posting from a american college site, I'm willing to take it as given that you have a pair of blue jeans.  And, assuming there is some coherency in your position, I will take it as a given that you do not have superhuman powers.  Arguments are evidence in themselves, in some respects.  >When you say the "existence of [ sic ] Jesus", I assume that you  >mean just the man, without any special powers, etc.  Yep.  >Many will agree that it is very possible that a man called Jesus DID  >in fact live. In fact, I am willing to agree that there was some man named  >Jesus. I have no reason to believe that there wasn't ever a man.  Good.  >However, most of the claims ARE extradinary: eg virgin birth  >[ virgin in the sense of not having any sexual intercourse ], resurection,  >Son of God, etc. THOSE claims require extra evidence.  "Extra" evidence?  Why don't we start with evidence at all?  I cannot see any evidence for the V. B. which the cynics in this group would ever accept.  As for the second, it is the foundation of the religion. Anyone who claims to have seen the risen Jesus (back in the 40 day period) is a believer, and therefore is discounted by those in this group; since these are all ancients anyway, one again to choose to dismiss the whole thing.  The third is as much a metaphysical relationship as anything else-- even those who agree to it have argued at length over what it *means*, so again I don't see how evidence is possible.  I thus interpret the "extraordinary claims" claim as a statement that the speaker will not accept *any* evidence on the matter.
In article <930420.113512.1V3.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes: >Don't sell the bastard arms and information in the first place.  Ruthlessly >hunt down those who do.  Especially if they're in positions of power.  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.  Their navy is entirely made of F-USSR vessels.  Their airforce (not including stuff captured from Kuwait which I am not as sure about), doesn't include any US equipment.  Their missiles are all non-US.  Their tanks are almost all soviet, with about 100 French tanks (older ones). The only US stuff in the Iraqi arsenal is a few M113s.  Those were not sold to Iraq.  Iraq captured them from other countries (like Kuwait).  Information is hard to prove.  You are claiming that the US sold information?  Prove it.   Now, how did the US build up Iraq again?  I just gave some fairly conclusive evidence that the US didn't sell arms to Iraq.  Information is hard to prove, almost certainly if the US did sell information, then that fact is classified, and you can't prove it.  If you can provide some useful evidence that the US sold arms or valuable intelligence to Iraq, I am very interested, but not if you just make claims based on what "everyone knows".
I recall a discussion I had heard years ago. It went something like this:  The problem with omnipotence (at least as I perceive it) as personified by  the christian God ideal is that it is potentially contradictory.  If a  manifestation such as God is truly infinite in power can God place limits  upon itself? . . Some stuff I can't recall. Then some other questions I think I recall correctly: Can God unmake itself? Can God make itself (assuming it doesn't yet exist)? Has God has always existed or is it necessary for an observer to bind all of Gods potential quantum states into reality? Was God nothing more than a primordial force of nature that existed during the earliest stages of universal (inflationary?) creation? Is God a vacuum fluctuation? Given a great enough energy density could we re-create God? Would that make US God and God something else? . . Some more stuff I don't recall concerning creating God.  Followed by: Is God self-aware? Is it necessary that God be self-aware? Is God a living entity? Is it necessay that God be a living entity? Is God unchanging or does it evolve? . . Any comments? Post them so that others might benefit from the open inquiry and resulting discussion.
In article <1993Apr03.232325.23178@acme.gen.nz> kilroy@acme.gen.nz (earthbound misfit, I) writes: >bena@dec07.cs.monash.edu.au (Ben Aveling) writes: > >> Warning - if you are anything like a devout Christian this post is >> really going to offend and/or upset you. > >[...numerous Ctrl-Ls deleted...hehehe...] > >> I assume everyone here is familiar with the Christian `fish' symbol. >> The one on the back of all those Volvos. >> The one that looks (something) like >>                __ >>               /  \/ >>               \__/\ >>  >> Or perhaps more like () ? >>                      '` >>  >> Well, I found out this morning where it comes from ... >>  >> It's been stolen from the pagans, like so much else ... >>  >> (Last last chance to be blisfully ignorant ;-] >>  >> Hmm, how can I put it. >>  >> Well, it comes from, this ... >>  >>  >>  >>                  __ >>                  \/ >>                  () >>              `__-'`-__' >>  >>  >>  >> Sigh, I hate drawing with ascii chars. >> Still, I think you can work it out from there ... > >If you haven't, go read "Skinny Legs and All" by Tom Robbins. If he's even >50% accurate then most of the modern religions have been "appropriated". >It's also a great book. > >Followups to alt.atheism, whose readers are probably slightly more authorative >on this. > >						- k >--  >Craig Harding            kilroy@acme.gen.nz             ACME BBS +64 6 3551342 >"Jub'er lbh pnyyvat n obmb?"  Craig-  I thought it was derived from a Greek acronym.  My Greek isn't up to much, but it goes something like this:  	Jesus Christ, God => Iesus CHristos, THeos => Ichthos  which is the Greek for "fish" (as in, eg "ichthysaurus").  Apologies for my dreadful Greek!  Perhaps someone will correct it.  By the way, what does your sig mean?
Jon Livesey writes:  >I'm certainly not going to attempt to distinguish between different >flavours of Christian, all loudly claiming to be the One True Christian.  Well, it's obvious that you *don't* attempt, otherwise you would be aware that they *don't* all "loudly [claim] to be the One True Christian".  I've tried to avoid using the phrase "is/is not christian" because of these ownership issues; instead, I've tried the phrase "Nicene christianity" in an attempt to identify the vast majority of "christianity" which has roughly similar viewpoints on the core theological issues.  The JWs do not fall within this group and in fact espouse a position known as Arianism, which is rejected by all the nicene churches and virtually everyone else as well.
prudenti@juncol.juniata.edu wrote:  : Upon arriving at home, Joseph probably took advantage of Mary...had his way : with her so to speak.  Of course, word of this couldn't get around so Mary, : being the highly-religious follower that she was decided "Hey, I'll just say : that GOD impregnated me...no one will ever know!" :  : Thus, seen as a trustworthy and honorable soul, she was believed... :      : And then came Jesus, the child born from violence. :  :  :   Dave,  Can you explain the purpose of your post, I can't imagine what you must have thougt it meant.
In article <1qnp13INN816@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes: |> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: |>  |> >Perhaps the chimps that failed to evolve cooperative behaviour |> >died out, and we are left with the ones that did evolve such |> >behaviour, entirely by chance. |>  |> That's the entire point!  No, that's the point of evolution, not the point of "natural morality".   Unless, of course, as I have suggested several times already, "natural morality" is just a renaming.  |>  |> >Are you going to proclaim a natural morality every time an |> >organism evolves cooperative behaviour? |>  |> Yes! |>  |> Natural morality is a morality that developed naturally.  But your "yes?" is actually stronger than this.    You are agreeing that "every time an organism evolves cooperative  behaviour" you are going to call it a "natural morality."  > >What about the natural morality of bee dance? > > Huh?  Bee dance is a naturally developed piece of cooperative behaviour.
bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:  >>But, you don't know that capital punishment is wrong, so it isn't the same >>as shooting.  A better analogy would be that you continue to drive your car, >>realizing that sooner or later, someone is going to be killed in an automobile >>accident.  You *know* people get killed as a result of driving, yet you >>continue to do it anyway. >Uh uh.  You do not know that you will be the one to do the >killing.  I'm not sure I'd drive a car if I had sufficient evidence to >conclude that I would necessarily kill someone during my lifetime.  Yes, and everyone thinks as you do.  No one thinks that he is going to cause or be involved in a fatal accident, but the likelihood is surprisingly high. Just because you are the man on the firing squad whose gun is shooting blanks does not mean that you are less guilty.  >I don't know about Jon, but I say *ALL* taking of human life is >murder.  And I say murder is wrong in all but one situation:  when >it is the only action that will prevent another murder, either of >myself or another.  You mean that killing is wrong in all but one situtation?  And, you should note that that situation will never occur.  There are always other options thank killing.  Why don't you just say that all killing is wrong.  This is basically what you are saying.  >I'm getting a bit tired of your probabilistic arguments.  Are you attempting to be condescending?  >That the system usually works pretty well is small consolation to >the poor innocent bastard getting the lethal injection.  Is your >personal value of human life based solely on a statistical approach? >You sound like an unswerving adherent to the needs of the many >outweighing the needs of the few, so fuck the few.  But, most people have found the risk to be acceptable.  You are probably much more likely to die in a plane crash, or even using an electric blender, than you are to be executed as an innocent.  I personally think that the risk is acceptable, but in an ideal moral system, no such risk is acceptable.  "Acceptable" is the fudge factor necessary in such an approximation to the ideal.
In article <1qlf7gINN8sn@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) wrote: > 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).  Hehehe, so you say, but this objective morality somehere tells you  that this is not the case, and you don't know all the rules of such transcendental game systems...  Cheers, Kent
In article <66019@mimsy.umd.edu> mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:   > >>     IF IT IS CONTRADICTORY IT CANNOT EXIST. > >"Contradictory" is a property of language.  If I correct this to > > >      THINGS DEFINED BY CONTRADICTORY LANGUAGE DO NOT EXIST >   No need to correct it, it stands as it is said.       >I will object to definitions as reality.  If you then amend it to > >      THINGS DESCRIBED BY CONTRADICTORY LANGUAGE DO NOT EXIST > >then we've come to something which is plainly false.  Failures in >description are merely failures in description. >   You miss the point entirely. Things defined by contradictory language do not exist. Though something existing might be meant, conclusions drawn from the description are wrong, unless there is the possibility to find the described, and draw conclusions from direct knowledge of the described then. Another possibility is to drop the contradictory part, but that implies that one can trust the concept as presented and that one has not got to doubt the source of it as well.   >(I'm not an objectivist, remember.) >   Neither am I. But either things are directly sensed (which includes some form of modelling, by the way) or they are used in modelling. Using something contradictive in modelling is not approved of. Wonder why?
In article <115288@bu.edu>, jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) wrote: > He'd have to be precise about is rejection of God and his leaving Islam. > One is perfectly free to be muslim and to doubt and question the > existence of God, so long as one does not _reject_ God. I am sure that > Rushdie has be now made his atheism clear in front of a sufficient  > number of proper witnesses. The question in regard to the legal issue > is his status at the time the crime was committed.   Gregg, so would you consider that Rushdie would now be left alone, and he could have a normal life? In other words, does Islam support the notion of forgiving?  Cheers, Kent
In article <1r98voINNr9q@lynx.unm.edu> cfaehl@vesta.unm.edu (Chris Faehl) writes:  >> The myth to which I refer is the convoluted counterfeit athiests have >> created to make religion appear absurd.  > >"Counterfeit atheists". Hmmmm. So, we're just cheap knock-offs of the >True Atheists.   	They must be theists in disguise.  	In any event, we don't _need_ to create religious parodies: just  look at some actual religions which are absurd.   [34mAnd now . . . [35mDeep Thoughts[0m 	[32mby Jack Handey.[0m
jcopelan@nyx.cs.du.edu (The One and Only) writes: > Welcome.  I am the official keeper of the list of nicknames that people > are known by on alt.atheism (didn't know we had such a list, did you). > Your have been awarded the nickname of "Buckminster."  So the next time > you post an article, sign with your nickname like so: > Dave "Buckminster" Fuller.  Thanks again. >  > Jim "Humor means never having to say you're sorry" Copeland  Of course, the list has to agree with the nickname laws laid down by the GIPU almost 2000 years ago (you know... the 9 of them that were written on the iron tablets that melted once and had to be reinscribed?).  Since I am a prophet of the GIPU I decree that you should post the whole list of nicknames for the frequent posters here!
In article <C5uzpE.18p@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu> bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes:  >What offends you is that I have exposed the distortions and >misrepresentations of Christianity you contrive and then rail against, >(which seems more like the classical strawman dodge than what I said) >This leaves you with nothing but to attack but me. As usual, you >avoid the larger issues by picking away at the insignificant stuff, why not >find one particular thing in my post that we can discuss, or can you >even tell me what the issues are?  	Let me guess: you're not a psycho-analyst in real life, but you play  one on alt.atheism. Right?   	Is ESP something you have been given by God? ---  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.
>>>>> On Tue, 20 Apr 93 21:12:55 GMT, cfairman@leland.Stanford.EDU (Carolyn Jean Fairman) said: CJF> agrino@enkidu.mic.cl (Andres Grino Brandt) asks about Mormons.  CJF> Although I don't personally know about independent sudies, I do know CJF> a few things. CJF> He writes:  >There are some mention about events, places, or historical persons >later discovered by archeologist?  CJF> One of the more amusing things in the BOM is a claim that a CJF> civilization existed in North America, aroun where the mystical plates CJF> were found.  Not only did it use steel and other metals, but it had CJF> lots of wars (very OT).  No one has ever found any metal swords or CJF> and traces of a civilization other than the Native Americans.  I was talking to the head of the archeology dept. once in college and the topic of Mormon archeology came up.  It seems that the Mormon church is (or was) big on giving grants to archeologists to prove that the native Americans are really the lost tribe of Israel and other such bunk.  The archeologists would shake their head knowingly while listening to them, take the grant, and go off to do real archeology anyway.
In article <65882@mimsy.umd.edu> mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes: > >I've said enough times that there is no "alternative" that should think you >might have caught on by now.  And there is no "alternative", but the point >is, "rationality" isn't an alternative either.  The problems of metaphysical >and religious knowledge are unsolvable-- or I should say, humans cannot >solve them.  How does that saying go: Those who say it can't be done shouldn't interrupt those who are doing it.  Jim