waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
Mike Cobb (cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu) wrote:  : Very true (length of time for discussions on creationism vs evolutionism).  : Atheists and Christians have been debating since ?? and still debate with  : unabated passion 8-).  Mike,  I've seen referrences to "Creation vs Evolution" several times in a.a and I have question. Is either point of view derived from direct observation; can either be scientific? I wonder if the whole controversy is more concerned with the consequences of the "Truth" rather than the truth itself.  Both sides seem to hold to a philosophical outcome, and I can't help wondering which came first. As I've pointed out elsewhere, my view of human nature makes me believe that there is no way of knowing anyhthing objectively - all knowledge is inherently subjective. So, in the context of a.a, would you take a stand based on what you actually know to be true or on what you want to be true and how can you tell the difference?
>In  <1r1mr8$eov@aurora.engr.LaTech.edu> ray@engr.LaTech.edu (Bill Ray) >wrote: > >Faith and dogma are inevitable.  Christians merely understand and admit >to the fact.  Give me your proof that no God exists, or that He does.   >Whichever position you take, you are forced to do it on faith.  It does >no good to say you take no position, for to show no interest in the  >existence of God is to assume He does not exist.  Consider special relativity.  It hasn't be proved, nor has it been disproved.  No one has a proof one way or the other, but many people are interested in it!   I've satisfied myself that nothing could indicate absolutely the existence of God one way or the other.  The two possibilities are supernaturalism and naturalism.  Of course no set of circumstances can be inconsistent with supernaturalism, but similarly, no set of circumstances can be inconsistent with naturalism.  In naturalism, any phenomenon that could be described as God is considered part of the natural world, to be studied as any other natural phenomenon (gravity, for instance).   For example, if a loud ``godlike'' voice vociferously announced, ``I am God, I exist, and I will prove it by reversing the force of gravity,'' and if then gravity did indeed reverse, a naturalist (probably a scientist) would say, ``Boy, we sure didn't understand gravity as well as we thought we did, and that loud voice is something new.  Perhaps we didn't understand thunder as well as we thought we did either.''  >I contend that proper implementation of the Christian faith requires >reasoning, but that reasoning cannot be used to throw out things you >don't like, or find uncomfortable.  Hedonistic sexual behavior is  >condemned in the Bible and no act of true reason will make it any >less condemned.  Hatred, murder, gossip; all these are condemned. >Is there God-ordained murder in the Bible?  You bet, and if God ever >orders me to kill you, I will.  But I will first use the Gideon-like >behavior of verifying that God actually ordered the hit, and will  >probably discuss it in an Abram-like fashion.  I'm sure glad you don't know where I live, since you don't seem to realize it is impossible for you to distinguish between voices in your head, and God's voice.  >I can hear you now, this is how Jim Jones and David Koresh justify >their behavior.  Delusional religious cults bear the same relationship  >to Christianity that rape bears to consentual sex: form but no substance. >When the Southern Baptist Church or the Methodist Church begin to do this >then you have reason to blame mainstream religion for the behaviors of these >people.  Or should I associate every negative behavior I witness in any >non-Christian with you?  You seem to have missed my point.  Even if Jim Jones and David Koresh were not religious people, my point remains that faith and dogma are dangerous, and religion encourages them.  Jim Jones and David Koresh also encouraged them.  My point does not rely on Jim Jones and David Koresh being religious.
In article <1ql71pINN5ef@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) says: > >Andrew Newell <TAN102@psuvm.psu.edu> writes: > >>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...  Worse?  Maybe not, but it is definately a violation of the rules the US govt. supposedly follows.  Maybe the others should be changed to?  But I'm not personally as concerned about the anthem since I don't come across it in daily nearly unavoidable routines.  >>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.  I don't despise the people...just their opinions.  I meant when chatting with the ones who refuse to listen to any idea other than their own...then it just becomes an exercise for amusement.  >[...] >>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?
bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes: >  >I see that you still can't grasp the obvious, is it because your are devious >by nature, or can you only find fault with an argument by >misrepresenting it?  Gee, since you ignored the entire substance of my substantial post, you got a lot of nerve claiming that I don't understand what's being talked about.  Respond to the previous post or shut the fuck up.  You're really annoying.   --  Maddi Hausmann                       madhaus@netcom.com Centigram Communications Corp        San Jose California  408/428-3553
In article <bskendigC5JCwx.Jzn@netcom.com>, bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes: > > [s.c.a quotes deleted] >  > It really looks like these people have no idea at all of what it means > to be atheist.  There are more Bobby Mozumder clones in the world than > I thought...  Well, that explains some things; I posted on soc.religion.islam with an attached quote by Bobby to the effect that all atheists are lying evil scum, and asked if it was a commonly-held idea among muslims.  I got no response.  Asking about the unknown, I guess...  Karl  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | "Lastly, I come to China in the hope      | "All you touch and all you see  | | of fulfilling a lifelong ambition -       | Is all your life will ever be." | | dropping acid on the Great Wall."  --Duke |                 --Pink Floyd    | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |         A Lie is still a Lie even if 3.8 billion people believe it.         |
mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes: > I think you mean circular, not recursive, but that is semantics. > Recursiveness has no problems, it is just horribly inefficient (just ask > any assembly programmer.)  Tail-recursive functions in Scheme are at least as efficient as iterative loops.  Anyone who doesn't program in assembler will have heard of optimizing compilers.
>>>>> On 12 Apr 93 21:36:33 +0930, 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (The Desert Brat) said:  TDB> 12. Disease introduced to Brazilian * oher S.Am. tribes: x million  To be fair, this was going to happen eventually.  Given time, the Americans would have reached Europe on their own and the same thing would have  happened.  It was just a matter of who got together first.
In article <1993Apr6.151843.15240@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes: >I should clarify what Muslims usually mean when they say "Muslim".  In >general, anyone who calls themselves a "Muslim" and does not do or  >outwardly profess >something in clear contradiction with the essential teachings of Islam >is considered to be a Muslim.  Thus, one who might do things contrary to >Islam (through ignorance, for example) does not suddenly _not_ become a >Muslim.  If one knowingly transgresses Islamic teachings and essential >principles, though, then one does leave Islam.  	You and Mr. bobby really need to sit down and decide what exactly Islam  *is* before posting here.  	According to 'Zlumber, one is NOT a muslim when one is doing evil.  [ A muslin can do no evil ] According to him, one who does evil is suffering  from "temporary athiesm."  	Now, would the members who claim to be "Muslims" get their stories  straight????  --          "Satan and the Angels do not have freewill.           They do what god tells them to do. "
Here's a suggestion for the logical argument FAQ.  I don't think it's covered, though the fallacy probably has a better name than the one I used:  How about it, mathew?  INCONSISTENCY AND COUNTEREXAMPLE  This occurs when one party points out that some source of information takes stand A, which is inconsistent with B.  There are two variations in which B is either a mutually-agreed-on premise or else a stand elsewhere from the same source.  The second party fallaciously responds by saying "see, the source really does say B, it's right here!"; this reply does not refute the allegation of inconsistency because it does not show that the source _only_ says B.  Example of the first type: "The Koran says unbelievers should be treated in these ways.  We can both agree these are immoral."  "The Koran clearly says in this other passage that unbelievers are not to be treated that way."  Example of the second type: "There are two Biblical creation stories."  "You're wrong, since the Bible clearly describes the creation as [description]." -- "On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey! On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole     that she made from Leftover Turkey. [days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...    -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)
In article <1qsum1INNg5k@shelley.u.washington.edu> jimh@carson.u.washington.edu (James Hogan) writes: > >I think you've missed the point.  Take "alt.atheism" for instance. >It's an exponent-based anagram.  When fully extended, it translates >to: >     Dig Tunnels Deep! >     Store Grain Everywhere! >     Prepare for the Coming Struggle! > >You'll no doubt recognize this as a quote from Chairman Mao. > >Thus, I think you'll have to admit that  atheists have a lot  >more up their sleeve than you might have suspected.  > >Agnostics will be sent to the gulag under the Mao-atheist new order.  Now where did I put my little red book?  Or was that green?  Jim
Did that FAQ ever got modified to re-define strong atheists as not those who assert the nonexistence of God, but as those who assert that they BELIEVE in  the nonexistence of God?  There was a thread on this earlier, but I didn't get the outcome...  -- Adam "No Nickname" Cooper
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:  >>>Explain to me >>>how instinctive acts can be moral acts, and I am happy to listen. >>For example, if it were instinctive not to murder... >Then not murdering would have no moral significance, since there >would be nothing voluntary about it.  See, there you go again, saying that a moral act is only significant if it is "voluntary."  Why do you think this?  And anyway, humans have the ability to disregard some of their instincts.  >>So, only intelligent beings can be moral, even if the bahavior of other >>beings mimics theirs? >You are starting to get the point.  Mimicry is not necessarily the  >same as the action being imitated.  A Parrot saying "Pretty Polly"  >isn't necessarily commenting on the pulchritude of Polly.  You are attaching too many things to the term "moral," I think. Let's try this:  is it "good" that animals of the same species don't kill each other.  Or, do you think this is right?   Or do you think that animals are machines, and that nothing they do is either right nor wrong?   >>Animals of the same species could kill each other arbitarily, but  >>they don't. >They do.  I and other posters have given you many examples of exactly >this, but you seem to have a very short memory.  Those weren't arbitrary killings.  They were slayings related to some sort of mating ritual or whatnot.  >>Are you trying to say that this isn't an act of morality because >>most animals aren't intelligent enough to think like we do? >I'm saying: >	"There must be the possibility that the organism - it's not  >	just people we are talking about - can consider alternatives." >It's right there in the posting you are replying to.  Yes it was, but I still don't understand your distinctions.  What do you mean by "consider?"  Can a small child be moral?  How about a gorilla?  A dolphin?  A platypus?  Where is the line drawn?  Does the being need to be self aware?  What *do* you call the mechanism which seems to prevent animals of the same species from (arbitrarily) killing each other?  Don't you find the fact that they don't at all significant?
In article <1993Apr15.150938.975@news.wesleyan.edu>, SSAUYET@eagle.wesleyan.edu (SCOTT D. SAUYET) says:  >Are these his final words?  (And how many here would find that >appropriate?)  Or is it just that finals got in the way?  >Keep your fingers crossed!  Why should I keep my fingers crossed? I doubt it would do anything. :)
"James F. Tims" <p00168@psilink.com> writes:  >By maintaining classes D and E, even in prison, it seems as if we  >place more innocent people at a higher risk of an unjust death than  >we would if the state executed classes D and E with an occasional error.  I would rather be at a higher risk of being killed than actually killed by                               ^^^^                      ^^^^^^^^ mistake.  Though I do agree with the concept that the type D and E murderers are a massive waste of space and resources I don't agree with the concept:  	killing is wrong 	if you kill we will punish you 	our punishment will be to kill you.  Seems to be lacking in consistency.
In article <1993Apr15.081303.16532@Cadence.COM>, mas@Cadence.COM (Masud Khan) writes: |>  |> Leonard, I'll give you an example of this.... |>  |> My father recently bought a business, the business price was 150,000 pounds |> and my father approached the people in the community for help, he raised |> 60,000 pounds in interest free loans from friends and relatives and  |> Muslims he knew, 50,000 had cash and the rest he got a business loan, after |> paying off the Muslim lenders many of them helped him with further loans |> to help him clear the bank debt and save him from further intrest, this |> is an example of a Muslim community helping one another, why did they help |> because of their common identity as Muslims. In turn my father has helped |> with people buying houses to minimise the amount of intrest they pay  |> and in some cases buy houses intrest free with the help of those more |> fortunate in the community.   Sorry.   Wrong.    This is how banks got started in the first place. Sooner or later your father and his pals will lend money to someone who eventually goes broke, and then they will realise that they havn't been managing risk very well.   Then they will ask themselves what it is that they need to quantify risk, and to persuade borrowers not to take on greater loans than they can carry.    And since they don't all want the worry of doing the calculations and handling the money, some of them will specialise in that.  Then they'll reinvent interest, but like good Muslims, they'll call it something else.  |>  |> The fact is Leonard it DOES work without a fluffy bunny in sight! |> iThat is the beauty of Islam.  Riiiight.   That's why John Major opened a new government department a couple of months ago to help to promote minority business.   Because they can do it all themselves by lending one another cups of sugar.
In article <schnitzi.735603785@eustis> schnitzi@eustis.cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius) writes: >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'm sure all the religious types would get in a snit due >to Asimov's atheism. > >Do we have any atheists on stamps now?   	More to the point, how long are atheists going to be insulted 	by the disgraceful addition of religious blah-blah to our  	money and out pledge? --  	"What's big, noisy and has an IQ of 8?"
mccullou@snake12.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes: > We seem to be agreeing that the soldiers were just doing their job > as best they could, following orders.    Proof positive that some people are beyond satire.
To the media, "religion" and "cult" have about the same relative connotations as "government" and "terrorist group".
cmtan@iss.nus.sg (Tan Chade Meng - dan) writes: > >Somebody forgotten me................ > >"No Nickname" Tan Chade Meng >(Chinese have nicknames in the front) > >-- > >The UnEnlightened One   I thought your nickname was "UnEnlightened" --  Maddi Hausmann                       madhaus@netcom.com Centigram Communications Corp        San Jose California  408/428-3553
In article <1993Apr16.130430.1@ccsua.ctstateu.edu> kellyb@ccsua.ctstateu.edu wrote:  >In article <kmr4.1563.734805744@po.CWRU.edu>, kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes: >>    Only when the Sun starts to orbit the Earth will I accept the Bible.  >>  >     Since when does atheism mean trashing other religions?There must be a God                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >     of inbreeding to which you are his only son.   a) I think that he has a rather witty .sig file.  It sums up a great    deal of atheistic thought (IMO) in one simple sentence. b) Atheism isn't an "other religion".
In article <C5L184.Jo9@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes: >In <1qlapk$d7v@morrow.stanford.edu> salem@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Bruce Salem)  >writes: >>In article <C5JrDE.M4z@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike  >Cobb) writes: >>>Theory of Creationism: MY theistic view of the theory of creationism, (there >>>are many others) is stated in Genesis 1.  In the beginning God created >>>the heavens and the earth. > >> Wonderful, now try alittle imaginative thinking! > >Huh? Imaginative thinking? What did that have to do with what I said? Would it >have been better if I said the world has existed forever and never was created >and has an endless supply of energy and there was spontaneous generation of  >life from non-life?  WOuld that make me all-wise, and knowing, and imaginative?    No, but at least it would be a theory.
In article <2944846190.2.p00261@psilink.com> "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com> writes: ::DATE:   Sun, 25 Apr 1993 10:13:30 GMT ::FROM:   Fred Rice <darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au: :: :: ::The Qur'an talks about those who take their lusts and worldly desires for  ::their "god". :: ::I think this probably encompasses most atheists. :: :: Fred Rice :: darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au    : :As well as all the Muslim men screwing fourteen year old prostitutes in :Thailand.  Got a better quote? :
In article <w_briggs-250493154912@ccresources6h59.cc.utas.edu.au> w_briggs@postoffice.utas.edu.au (William Briggs) writes:   (Deletion) >> 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.... :-) > >A few points guys, (oops guy and gal but I use the term guy asexually): > >- Has the same sort of conspiracy ever occurred since, (I mean there must >have been dozen of times in the past two thousand years when it would have >been opportune time for a 'messiah' to be born. >   It has. There is a guy running around in Switzerland who claims to have been conceived similarly. His mother says the same. His father is said to be a bit surprised.   But anyway, there have been a lot of Messiahs, and many have had a similar story about their birth. Or their death. A list of Messiahs could be quite interesting.     >- Wouldn't you feel bad if you turned out to be wrong and the conception of >Christ was via God?  I can just imagine your faces as Mary asks you if >you've ever had a child yourself. >   I would wonder why an omnipotent god pulls such stunts instead of providing evidence for everyone to check. And the whole question is absurd.   Wouldn't you feel bad if you'd find out that stones are sentient, and that you have stepped on them all your life? And wouldn't you feel bad when you'd see the proof that Jesus was just a plot of Satan?     >- If they wanted to save image they could have done what Joseph planned to >do in the first place - have a quite wedding and an equally quite divorce, >(I think it was quite easy to do under Jewish law).  In that regard they >would have been pretty DUMB to think up a conspiracy like the one you've >outlined in that they a bringing attention on themselves.  (Messiah >appearances were like Royal Scandals in zero AD Israel, (see the part in >Acts when the Sandhedrin are discussing what to do about the growth of the >new Church, (i.e. one wise guy said - leave it alone and if it is what it >says it is nothing can stop it and if it isn't then it will just fizzle out >anyway)). >   You've forgotten the pride factor.     >- It didn't fizzle, (the Church I mean). >   The argument is a fallacy. It is like "thanks for reading this far" on the end of a letter. Most religions claim that they won't fizzle because they contain some eternal truth. So does Christianity. Since there are old religions it is no wonder to find old religions that have it that they would last.
In article <1r5e1vINNkn@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes: >kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes: > >>>>Wait.  Are we talking about ethics or morals here? >>>Is the distinction important? >>Yes. > >Well, make it.  Ethics deal with individuals.  Morals deal with groups.  >>>Well, our moral system seems to mimic the natural one, in a number of ways. >>Please describe these "number of ways" in detail.  Then explain the any >>contradictions that may arise. > >Just look at how human behavior mimics animal behavior.  I couldn't even >begin to list all of the similarities.  Many of the dissimilarities are due >to our high intelligence.  Please describe these "number of ways" in detail.  Then explain any contradictions that may arise.  >>>I don't know.  What is wrong?  Is it possible for humans to survive for >>>a long time in the wild?  Yes, it's possible, but it is difficult.  Humans >>>are a social animal, and that is a cause of our success. >>Define "difficult". > >I don't understand what you don't understand.  The sentence, "Yes, it's possible, but it is difficult."  Humans survived "in the wild" for hundreds of thousands of years.  >>>No.  As noted earlier, lack of mating (such as abstinence or homosexuality) >>>isn't really destructive to the system.  It is a worst neutral. >>So if every member of the species was homosexual, this wouldn't be destructive >>to the survival of the species? > >Most animals that exhibit homosexuality are actually bisexual.  Answer the question, Keith.  Is homosexuality detrimental to the survival of the species?
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:  >>>How long does it [the motto] have to stay around before it becomes the >>>default?  ...  Where's the cutoff point?  >>I don't know where the exact cutoff is, but it is at least after a few >>years, and surely after 40 years. >Why does the notion of default not take into account changes >in population makeup?       Specifically, which changes are you talking about?  Are you arguing that the motto is interpreted as offensive by a larger portion of the population now than 40 years ago?