waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <1993Apr2.223248.19014@Princeton.EDU> qpliu@princeton.edu writes: >In article <1993Apr2.115300.803@batman.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes: >>But God created Lucifer with a perfect nature and gave him along with >>the other angels free moral will. > >>Now God could have prevented Lucifer's fall by taking away his ability >>to choose between moral alternatives (worship God or worship himself), > >So Lucifer's moral choices are determined by his will. >What determines what his will is? >--  >qpliu@princeton.edu           Standard opinion: Opinions are delta-correlated.  Bobby-  A few posts ago you said that Lucifer had no free will.  From the above it seems the JW believes the contrary.  Are you talking about the same Lucifer?  If so, can you suggest an experiment to determine which of you is wrong?  Or do you claim that you are both right?
In article <66014@mimsy.umd.edu> mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes: >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.   Ah, now here is the core question. Let me suggest a scenario.   We will grant that a God exists, and uses revelation to communicate with humans. (Said revelation taking the form (paraphrased from your own words) 'This infinitely powerful deity grabs some poor schmuck, makes him take dictation, and then hides away for a few hundred years'.)  Now, there exists a human who has not personally experienced a revelation. This person observes that not only do these revelations seem to contain elements that contradict rather strongly aspects of the observed world (which is all this person has ever seen), but there are many mutually contradictory claims of revelation.   Now, based on this, can this person be blamed for concluding, absent a personal revelation of their own, that there is almost certainly nothing to this 'revelation' thing?  >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.   Absent this better language, and absent observations in support of the claims of revelation, can one be blamed for doubting the whole thing?   Here is what I am driving at: I have thought a long time about this. I have come to the honest conclusion that if there is a deity, it is nothing like the ones proposed by any religion that I am familiar with.  Now, if there does happen to be, say, a Christian God, will I be held accountable for such an honest mistake?   Sincerely,   Ray Ingles               ingles@engin.umich.edu
In article <1pq47tINN8lp@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> bobs@thnext.mit.edu (Robert Singleton) writes:   (Deletion) > >I will argue that your latter statement, "I believe that no gods exist" >does rest upon faith - that is, if you are making a POSITIVE statement >that "no gods exist" (strong atheism) rather than merely saying I don't >know and therefore don't believe in them and don't NOT believe in then >(weak atheism). Once again, to not believe in God is different than saying >I BELIEVE that God does not exist. I still maintain the position, even >after reading the FAQs, that strong atheism requires faith. >   No it in the way it is usually used. In my view, you are saying here that driving a car requires faith that the car drives.   For me it is a conclusion, and I have no more faith in it than I have in the premises and the argument used.     >But first let me say the following. >We might have a language problem here - in regards to "faith" and >"existence". I, as a Christian, maintain that God does not exist. >To exist means to have being in space and time. God does not HAVE >being - God IS Being. Kierkegaard once said that God does not >exist, He is eternal. With this said, I feel it's rather pointless >to debate the so called "existence" of God - and that is not what >I'm doing here. I believe that God is the source and ground of >being. When you say that "god does not exist", I also accept this >statement - but we obviously mean two different things by it. However, >in what follows I will use the phrase "the existence of God" in it's >'usual sense' - and this is the sense that I think you are using it. >I would like a clarification upon what you mean by "the existence of >God". >   No, that's a word game. The term god is used in a different way usually. When you use a different definition it is your thing, but until it is commonly accepted you would have to say the way I define god is ... and that does not exist, it is existence itself, so I say it does not exist.   Interestingly, there are those who say that "existence exists" is one of the indubitable statements possible.   Further, saying god is existence is either a waste of time, existence is already used and there is no need to replace it by god, or you are implying more with it, in which case your definition and your argument so far are incomplete, making it a fallacy.     (Deletion) >One can never prove that God does or does not exist. When you say >that you believe God does not exist, and that this is an opinion >"based upon observation", I will have to ask "what observtions are >you refering to?" There are NO observations - pro or con - that >are valid here in establishing a POSITIVE belief. (Deletion)   Where does that follow? Aren't observations based on the assumption that something exists?   And wouldn't you say there is a level of definition that the assumption "god is" is meaningful. If not, I would reject that concept anyway.
In article <114127@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:   >>When they are victimized they are Muslims. When they victimize others >>they are not True Muslims (tm) or no Muslims at all. > >>Quite annoying. > >I don't understand the point of this petty sarcasm. It is a basic >principle of Islam that if one is born muslim or one says "I testify >that there is no god but God and Mohammad is a prophet of God" that, >so long as one does not explicitly reject Islam by word then one _must_ >be considered muslim by all muslims. So the phenomenon you're attempting >to make into a general rule or psychology is a direct odds with basic >Islamic principles. If you want to attack Islam you could do better than >than to argue against something that Islam explicitly contradicts. >   It was no criticism of Islam for a change, it was a criticism of the arguments used. Namely, whenever people you identify as Muslims are the victims of the attacks of others, they are used an argument for the bad situation of Muslims. But whenever deeds by Muslim that victimize others are named, they do not count as an argument because what these people did was not done as a true Muslims. No mention is made how Muslims are the cause of a bad situation of another party.
Pixie (dl2021@andy.bgsu.edu) wrote:  :      For all the problems technology has caused, your types have made : things even worse.  Must we be reminded of the Inquisition, Operation : Rescue, the Ku Klux Klan, Posse Comitatus, the 700 Club, David Duke, Salem : Witch Trials, the Crusades, gay bashings, etc. :      PLUS virtually each and every single war, regardless of the level of : technology, has had theistic organizations cheering on the carnage : (chaplains, etc.), and claiming that god was in favor of the whole ordeal.  : Don't forget to pray for our troops! :        This is really tedious. Every bad thing that's ever happened is because the malefactors were under the influence of religion - does anyone -really- believe that. I've seen it so often it must be a pretty general opinion in a.a, but I want to believe that atheists are really not THAT dishonest. Please, stick to the facts and, having accomplished that, interpret them correctly.
timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu (Bake Timmons) writes: > There lies the hypocrisy, dude.  Atheism takes as much faith as theism.   > Admit it!  Some people might think it takes faith to be an atheist... but faith in what?  Does it take some kind of faith to say that the Great Invisible Pink Unicorn does not exist?  Does it take some kind of faith to say that Santa Claus does not exist?  If it does (and it may for some people I suppose) it certainly isn't as big a leap of faith to say that these things (and god) DO exist.  (I suppose it depends on your notion and definition of "faith".)  Besides... not believing in a god means one doesn't have to deal with all of the extra baggage that comes with it!  This leaves a person feeling wonderfully free, especially after beaten over the head with it for years! I agree that religion and belief is often an important psychological healer for many people and for that reason I think it's important.  However, trying to force a psychological fantasy (I don't mean that in a bad way, but that's what it really is) on someone else who isn't interested is extremely rude.  What if I still believed in Santa Claus and said that my belief in Santa did wonderful things for my life (making me a better person, allowing me to live without guilt, etc...) and then tried to get you to believe in Santa too just 'cuz he did so much for me?  You'd call the men in white coats as soon as you could get to a phone.  > -- > Bake Timmons, III
The One and Only (jcopelan@nyx.cs.du.edu) wrote: : In article <dl2021-310393180711@m249-66.bgsu.edu> dl2021@andy.bgsu.edu (Pixie) writes: : [first post I've seen from the ol' Bug-Zoo (BGSU)] : >     There is no means that i can possibly think of to prove beyond doubt : >that a god does not exist (but if anyone has one, by all means, tell me : >what it is).  Therefore, lacking this ability of absolute proof, being an : >atheist becomes an act of faith in and of itself, and this I cannot accept. : > I accept nothing on blind faith.  : Invisible Pink Flying Unicorns!  Need I say more?  There is also the question of what is meant by "atheist".  A familiar example of the importance of the meaning of the word is as follows.  The two statements following ARE consistent:  (1) I do not believe that you are wearing lilac socks (2) I do not believe that you are are not wearing lilac socks  The two statements following are NOT consistent:  (3) I do believe that you are wearing lilac socks (4) I do believe that you are are not wearing lilac socks  Statements (1) and (2) require no faith, they make no presumptions about the nature of reality.  Statements (3) and (4) require belief.  Many atheists (myself included) take the following position:  (5) I do not believe that there is a god. (6) I do not believe that there is not a god.
In article <1993Apr19.112008.26198@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>, darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes: |> In <1qi3fc$jkj@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: |>  |> >In article <1993Apr14.110209.7703@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>, darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes: |> >> |> >> Some here on alt.atheism think that by condemning the actions  |> >> of some of those who call themselves Muslims, they are condemning  |> >> Islam. |>  |> >Do you read minds, Mr Rice?   You know what posters think now, |> >not just what they write? |>  |> >For myself, I only have what people are posting here to go on, |> >and that's what I am commenting on. |>  |> I think you may have misunderstood me. |>  |> I mean that one does not really criticize _Islam_ necessarily by |> bringing Khomeini etc. into the argument, for whether he is or is not |> following Islam has to be determined by examining his actions against |> Islamic teachings.  Islamic teachings are contained in the Qur'an and |> hadiths (reported sayings and doings of the Prophet).  That's funny, I thought you were making a statement about what people think.    In fact, I see it quoted up there.
> Oh, this all sounds so nice!  Everyone helping each other and always smiling > and fluffy bunnies everywhere.  Wake up!  People are just not like that.  It > seems evident from history that no society has succeeded when it had to rely > upon the goodwill and unselfishness of the people.  Isn't it obvious from > places like Iran that even if there are only a few greedy people in society > then they are going to be attracted to positions of power?  Sounds like a > recipe for disaster.  Looking at historical evidence such 'perfect utopian' islamic states didn't survive. I agree, people are people, and even if you might start an Islamic revolution and create this perfect state, it takes  some time and the internal corruption will destroy the ground rules -- again.  Cheers, Kent
mmwang@adobe.com (Michael Wang) writes:  >I was looking for a rigorous definition because otherwise we would be >spending the rest of our lives arguing what a "Christian" really >believes.  I don't think we need to argue about this.  >KS>Do you think that the motto points out that this country is proud >KS>of its freedom of religion, and that this is something that >KS>distinguishes us from many other countries? >MW>No. >KS>Well, your opinion is not shared by most people, I gather. >Perhaps not, but that is because those seeking to make government >recognize Christianity as the dominant religion in this country do not >think they are infringing on the rights of others who do not share >their beliefs.  Yes, but also many people who are not trying to make government recognize Christianity as the dominant religion in this country do no think the motto infringes upon the rights of others who do not share their beliefs.  And actually, I think that the government already does recognize that Christianity is the dominant religion in this country.  I mean, it is. Don't you realize/recognize this?  This isn't to say that we are supposed to believe the teachings of Christianity, just that most people do.  >Like I've said before I personally don't think the motto is a major >concern.  If you agree with me, then what are we discussing?  >KS>Since most people don't seem to associate Christmas with Jesus much >KS>anymore, I don't see what the problem is. >Can you prove your assertion that most people in the U.S. don't >associate Christmas with Jesus anymore?  No, but I hear quite a bit about Christmas, and little if anything about Jesus.  Wouldn't this figure be more prominent if the holiday were really associated to a high degree with him?  Or are you saying that the association with Jesus is on a personal level, and that everyone thinks about it but just never talks about it?  That is, can *you* prove that most people *do* associate Christmas most importantly with Jesus?  >Anyways, the point again is that there are people who do associate >Christmas with Jesus. It doesn't matter if these people are a majority >or not.  I think the numbers *do* matter.  It takes a majority, or at least a majority of those in power, to discriminate.  Doesn't it?
Nanci Ann Miller <nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:  > snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes: > > More horrible deaths resulted from atheism than anything else. > > There are definitely quite a few horrible deaths as the result of > both atheists AND theists.  ...  Perhaps, since I'm a bit weak on > history, somone here would like to give a list of wars caused/led by > theists? ...  This thread seems to be arguing the validity of a religious viewpoint according to some utilitarian principle, i.e. atheism/religion is wrong because it causes death.  The underlying `moral' is that death is `wrong'.  This is a rather arbitrary measure of validity.  Get some epistemology.
In article <1993Apr13.213055.818@antioc.antioch.edu>, smauldin@antioc.antioch.edu writes: |> I stopped believing in you as well, long before the invention of technology. |>  |> --GOD |>   Ahhh go back to alt.autotheism where you belong!
In article <1pigidINNsot@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:  > Not so.  If you are thrown into a cage with a tiger and get mauled, do you > blame the tiger?  AHA! He admits it! He IS a moral relativist!  Keith, if you start wafffling on about how it is different for a human to maul someone thrown into it's cage (so to speak), you'd better start posting tome decent evidence or retract your 'I think there is an absolute morality' blurb a few weeks ago.  > keith  The Desert Brat
1.  Did you read the FAQs?  2.  If NO, Read the FAQs.  3.  IF YES, you wouldn't have posted such drivel.  The "Lord, Liar     or Lunatic" argument is a false trilemma.  Even if you disprove     Liar and Lunatic (which you haven't), you have not eliminated     the other possibilities, such as Mistaken, Misdirected, or     Misunderstood.  You have arbitrarily set up three and only     three possibilities without considering others.  4.  Read a good book on rhetoric and critical thinking.  If     you think the "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic" discussion is an     example of a good argument, you are in need of learning.  5.  Read the FAQs again, especially "Constructing a Logical     Argument."  Ignore these instructions at your peril.  Disobeying them leaves you open for righteous flaming.   --  Maddi Hausmann                       madhaus@netcom.com Centigram Communications Corp        San Jose California  408/428-3553
In article <4949@eastman.UUCP> dps@nasa.kodak.com writes: >Simple logic arguments are folly.  If you read the Bible you will see >that Jesus made fools of those who tried to trick him with "logic".  Why don't you cite the passages so that we can focus on some to discuss. Then, following Jesus, you can make fools of us and our "logic".  >               If you rely simply on your reason then you will never >know more than you do now.  Indeed, if you can justifiably make this assertion, you must be a genius in logic and making fools of us should be that much easier.
In article <1993Apr14.190904.21222@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes: >From: mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) >Subject: Re: note to Bobby M. >Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 19:09:04 GMT >In article <1993Apr14.131548.15938@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes: >>In <madhausC5CKIp.21H@netcom.com> madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes: >> >>>Mark, how much do you *REALLY* know about vegetarian diets? >>>The problem is not "some" B-vitamins, it's balancing proteins.   >>>There is also one vitamin that cannot be obtained from non-animal >>>products, and this is only of concern to VEGANS, who eat no >>>meat, dairy, or eggs.  I believe it is B12, and it is the only >>>problem.  Supplements are available for vegans; yes, the B12 >>>does come from animal by-products.  If you are on an ovo-lacto >>>vegetarian diet (eat dairy and eggs) this is not an issue. > >I didn't see the original posting, but... >Yes, I do know about vegetarian diets, considering that several of my >close friends are devout vegetarians, and have to take vitamin supplements. >B12 was one of the ones I was thinking of, it has been a long time since >I read the article I once saw talking about the special dietary needs >of vegetarians so I didn't quote full numbers.  (Considering how nice >this place is. ;) > >>B12 can also come from whole-grain rice, I understand.  Some brands here >>in Australia (and other places too, I'm sure) get the B12 in the B12 >>tablets from whole-grain rice. > >Are you sure those aren't an enriched type?  I know it is basically >rice and soybeans to get almost everything you need, but I hadn't heard >of any rice having B12.   > >>Just thought I'd contribute on a different issue from the norm :) > >You should have contributed to the programming thread earlier. :) > >> Fred Rice >> darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au    > >M^2 > If one is a vegan (a vegetarian taht eats no animal products at at i.e eggs,  milk, cheese, etc., after about 3 years of a vegan diet, you need to start  taking B12 supplements because b12 is found only in animals.) Acutally our  bodies make B12, I think, but our bodies use up our own B12 after 2 or 3  years.   Lacto-oveo vegetarians, like myself, still get B12 through milk products  and eggs, so we don't need supplements. And If anyone knows more, PLEASE post it.  I'm nearly contridicting myself  with the mish-mash of knowledge I've gleaned.
In article <C51DAq.2Fqs@austin.ibm.com>, karner@austin.ibm.com (F. Karner) writes: > > So, you consider the german poster's remark anti-semitic?   When someone says:  	"So after 1000 years of sightseeing and roaming around its  	ok to come back, kill Palastinians, and get their land back,  	right?"  Yes, that's casual antisemitism.    I can think of plenty of ways to criticize Israeli policy without insulting Jews or Jewish history.  Can't you?
Andrew Newell <TAN102@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:  >>I think you should support your first claim, that people will simply >>harass me no matter what, as I doubt this is true. I think *some* of the >>theists will be at a loss, and that is enough reason for me. >Because "IN GOD WE TRUST" is a motto on the coins, and the coins >are a representation of the government, christians are given >ammunition here to slander atheists as unpatriotic.  So, we should ban the ammunition?  Why not get rid of the guns?  >And yes, I have heard this used in conversation with christians. >Sure, they may fall back on other things, but this is one they >should not have available to use.  It is worse than others?  The National Anthem?  Should it be changed too? God Bless America?  The list goes on...  >Imagine if the next year's set of coins were labeled with >the motto:   "GOD IS DEAD". >Certainly, such a statement on U.S. coins would offend almost >every christian.  And I'd be tempted to rub that motto in the >face of christians when debunking their standard motto slinging >gets boring.  Then you'd be no better than the people you despise.  >Any statement printed on an item that represents >the government is an endorsement by the government.  Oh?  >The coin motto is an endorsement of trusting in god.  An endorsement, or an acknowledgement?  I think gods are things that people are proud of, but I don't think the motto encourages belief.  >I don't particularly feel like trusting in god, >so the government IS putting me down with every >coin it prints.  Is it?  [...] >For the motto to be legitimate, it would have to read: >   "In god, gods, or godlessness we trust"  Would you approve of such a motto?  >Whether the motto was intended to be anti-atheist or not, >it turns up as an open invitation to use as an anti-atheist tool.  And removing the tool will solve the problem?  Or will it increase the problem?