waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
west@next02cville.wam.umd.edu (Stilgar) writes:  >The pope is jewish.... I guess they're right, and I always thought that >the thing on his head was just a fancy hat, not a Jewish headpiece (I >don't remember the name).  It's all so clear now (clear as mud.)  As to what that headpiece is....  (by chort@crl.nmsu.edu)  SOURCE: AP NEWSWIRE  The Vatican, Home Of Genetic Misfits?  Michael  A. Gillow, noted geneticist, has revealed  some unusual  data after working undercover in  the Vatican for the past 18 years.   "The Popehat(tm) is actually an advanced bone spur.", reveals Gillow in his groundshaking report. Gillow, who had  secretly  studied the innermost workings of the Vatican since returning from Vietnam in a wheel chair, first approached the scientific community with his  theory in the late 1950's.  "The  whole hat  thing, that was just a cover  up. The  Vatican didn't want the Catholic Community(tm) to realize  their  leader  was hefting nearly  8 kilograms of extraneous  bone  tissue on    the  top of  his skull.", notes Gillow in his report. "There are whole  laboratories in the  Vatican  that experiment with tissue  transplants and bone marrow experiments.  What started as a genetic fluke in the mid 1400's is now scientifically engineered and bred for. The whole bone transplant idea started  in  the  mid   sixties  inspired  by   doctor  Timothy  Leary transplanting deer  bone cells into small white rats." Gillow is quick to point  out  the  assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II and the disappearance of Dr.  Leary from the public eye.  "When it becomes time to replace the pope", says Gillow, "The old pope and the replacement pope are  locked  in a padded  chamber. They  butt heads much  like  male yaks  fighting for dominance of the  herd.  The victor emerges and has  earned the privilege of inseminating the choir boys."   P.
In article <1ql667INN54a@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes: > >What I've been saying is that moral behavior is likely the null behavior.    Do I smell .sig material here?   /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\   Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM   They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away, and sank Manhattan out at sea.
Maddi Hausmann (madhaus@netcom.com) wrote:  : But how do we know that you're representing the REAL Christians? : ;-)  : Bill, you're an asshole.  Get lost.  Maddi,  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?  I plainly said that I was stating the Christian position as I understand it, I did not say whether I agree with it since my point was that the only flaws in that position are those atheists invent. I have never claimed to be an expert on anything and especially Christianity, but I have made it an object of pretty intense study over the years, so I feel qualified to discuss what its general propositions are.  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?
In article <kmr4.1433.734039535@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M.   Ryan) writes: > In article <1993Apr5.163050.13308@wam.umd.edu>   west@next02cville.wam.umd.edu (Stilgar) writes: > >In article <kmr4.1422.733983061@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M.   > >Ryan) writes: > >> In article <1993Apr5.025924.11361@wam.umd.edu>   > >west@next02cville.wam.umd.edu (Stilgar) writes: > >>  > >> >THE ILLIAD IS THE UNDISPUTED WORD OF GOD(tm)    *prove me wrong* > >>  > >> 	I dispute it. > >>  > >> 	Ergo: by counter-example: you are proven wrong. > > > >	I dispute your counter-example > > > >	Ergo: by counter-counter-example: you are wrong and > >	I am right so nanny-nanny-boo-boo TBBBBBBBTTTTTTHHHHH >  > 	No. The premis stated that it was undisputed.  >   Fine... THE ILLIAD IS THE WORD OF GOD(tm)  (disputed or not, it is)  Dispute that.  It won't matter.  Prove me wrong.  Brian West
In article <114140@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:   >>>>> In cases of prostitution >>>>>both the man and the prostitute would be punished in public, quite >>>>>severely.   (Deletion)   > >>No Gregg, you cannot say A is lenient and A punishes severely in public. >>Unless, of course, it is one of the exceptions implied by "almost all >>matters". > >That depends on the statistics and who is punished in public. If some >power (for example, nothing Islamic about it) allows men to rape women >five times before blowing the rapist's head off in public then I'd call >that leniency, wouldn't you? >   You have given that example. It is not lenient. End of argument.   And chopping off the hands or heads of people is not lenient either. It rather appears that you are internalized the claims about the legal system without checking if they suit the description.   And wasn't the argument that it takes five men to rape a woman according to Islamic law?     >>While I don't approve of it, I think both the prostitute and the customer >>have the right to do what they do. In other words, punishing them is a >>violation of their rights. And to punish them severely in public is just >>another pointer to the hysteria connected with sexuality in so many >>religions. > >Believe what you like. >   No, I even believe what I don't like. Can you give better answers than that? Have you got any evidence for your probably opposite claims?     >>In this case, I don't see why I should accept the complex ridden views >>of an oriental goatherd. > >Ah, yes, I forget that the West is historically so much without sexual >neurosis :) > >"Oriental goatherd", _really_ intellectual. >   A fact, if memory serves. And most will see the connection between the primitive machism in the Orient and in Islam.   >>If people agree on having sex it is fine. And I would assume that a >>god would have a clue of what the detrimental effects of supressing it >>are. > >Huh? Ever heard of AIDs? (Of course you'll probably go on to say that >God must be evil because he allows the disease to exist, bla bla). >   As usually you miss the point. Aids is  neither spread only through sex nor necessarily spread by having sex. Futher, the point is, a very important point, the urge for sex is stronger than the fear of AIDS. It is even stronger than the religious attempts to channel or to forbid sex. The consequences of suppressing sex are worse than the consequences of Aids. Please note that the idea that everybody would end up with AIDS when sex is not controlled is completely counterfactual.
In article <1993Apr21.184959.9451@dcs.warwick.ac.uk> simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes: > >Dan, I'm concerned that you are in grave spiritual danger because of your >stubborn refusal to love and accept into your heart the Mighty Invisible >Pink Unicorn...[Nice parody deleted.]  >I shall pray for you. In fact, brother, I cast out the demon which binds you >in the Name of the Mighty Invisible Pink Unicorn. Dan, you must have *faith*!  Then you better pray for me, too, because I believe that the Mighty Invisibile Pink Unicorn does not exist. One being cannot be both "Pink" and "Invisible." The demon (or should that be daemon?) that keeps me from believing and saving my soul is named Logic.
In article <1pqdor$9s2@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: >In article <1993Apr3.071823.13253@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes: >The poster casually trashed two thousand years of Jewish history, and  >Ken replied that there had previously been people like him in Germany.  I think the problem here is that I pretty much ignored the part about the Jews sightseeing for 2000 years, thinking instead that the important part of what the original poster said was the bit about killing Palestinians.  In retrospect, I can see how the sightseeing thing would be offensive to many.  I originally saw it just as poetic license, but it's understandable that others might see it differently.  I still think that Ken came on a bit strong though.  I also think that your advice to Masud Khan:    #Before you argue with someone like Mr Arromdee, it's a good idea to   #do a little homework, or at least think.  was unnecessary.  >That's right.   There have been.    There have also been people who >were formally Nazis.   But the Nazi party would have gone nowhere >without the active and tacit support of the ordinary man in the >street who behaved as though casual anti-semitism was perfectly >acceptable. > >Now what exactly don't you understand about what I wrote, and why >don't you see what it has to do with the matter at hand?  Throughout all your articles in this thread there is the tacit assumption that the original poster was exhibiting casual anti-semitism.  If I agreed with that, then maybe your speech on why this is bad might have been relevant.  But I think you're reading a lot into one flip sentence.  While probably not true in this case, too often the charge of anti-semitism gets thrown around in order to stifle legitimate criticism of the state of Israel.  Anyway, I'd rather be somewhere else, so I'm outta this thread.
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:  >>>>What if I act morally for no particular reason?  Then am I moral?  What >>>>if morality is instinctive, as in most animals? >>>Saying that morality is instinctive in animals is an attempt to  >>>assume your conclusion. >>Which conclusion? >You conclusion - correct me if I err - that the behaviour which is >instinctive in animals is a "natural" moral system.  See, we are disagreeing on the definition of moral here.  Earlier, you said that it must be a conscious act.  By your definition, no instinctive behavior pattern could be an act of morality.  You are trying to apply human terms to non-humans.  I think that even if someone is not conscious of an alternative, this does not prevent his behavior from being moral.  >>You don't think that morality is a behavior pattern?  What is human >>morality?  A moral action is one that is consistent with a given >>pattern.  That is, we enforce a certain behavior as moral. >You keep getting this backwards.  *You* are trying to show that >the behaviour pattern is a morality.  Whether morality is a behavior  >pattern is irrelevant, since there can be behavior pattern, for >example the motions of the planets, that most (all?) people would >not call a morality.  I try to show it, but by your definition, it can't be shown.  And, morality can be thought of a large class of princples.  It could be defined in terms of many things--the laws of physics if you wish.  However, it seems silly to talk of a "moral" planet because it obeys the laws of phyics.  It is less silly to talk about animals, as they have at least some free will.
timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu ("Half" Bake Timmons) writes: > Maddi: >>  >>Whirr click whirr...Frank O'Dwyer might also be contained >>in that shell...pop stack to determine...whirr...click..whirr > >>"Killfile" Keith Allen Schneider = Frank "Closet Theist" O'Dwyer = ...  >= Maddi "The Mad Sound-O-Geek" Hausmann  No, no, no!  I've already been named by "Killfile" Keith. My nickname is Maddi "Never a Useful Post" Hausmann, and don't you DARE forget it, "Half".  >-- "...there's nothing higher, stronger, more wholesome and more useful in life >than some good memory..." -- Alyosha in Brothers Karamazov (Dostoevsky)  You really should quote Ivan Karamazov instead(on a.a), as he was the atheist.  --  Maddi Hausmann                       madhaus@netcom.com Centigram Communications Corp        San Jose California  408/428-3553
This (frayed) thread has turned into a patented alt.atheism 5-on-1 ping-pong game, and I don't have any strong disagreement, so I'll try to stick to the one thing I don't quite follow about the argument:  It seems to me that there is a contradiction in arguing that the Bible was "enlightened for its times" (i.e. closer to what we would consider morally good based on our standards and past experience) on the one hand [I hope this summarizes this argument adequately], and on the other hand:  In article <1993Apr03.001125.23294@watson.ibm.com> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes: }In article <1phpe1INN8g6@dsi.dsinc.com>, perry@dsinc.com (Jim Perry) writes:  }|> }Disclaimer:  I'm speaking from the Jewish perspective, }|> }where "the Bible" means what many call the Old Testament, }|> }and where the interpretation is not necessarily the }|> }raw text, but instead the court cases, commentaries }|> }and traditions passed down through Jewish communities. }|>  }|> This seems the crux to me: if you judge the Bible according to a long }|> line of traditions and interpretations coming down to the current day, }|> rather than on its own merits as a cultural artifact, then of course }|> it will correspond more closely with more contemporary values. } }But if that's how the Bible is actually being used today, }shouldn't that be how we should judge it?  If most people }use scissors to cut paper, shouldn't Consumer's Reports }test scissors for paper-cutting ability, even though }scissors may have been designed originally to cut cloth?  That's possibly a good way to judge the use of the Bible in teaching Jewish morality today, but it hardly seems fair to claim that this highly-interpreted version is what was "enlightened for its times". To (attempt to) extend the analogy, this is like saying that the original scissor-makers were unusually advanced at paper-cutting for their times, even though they only ever cut cloth, and had never even heard of paper.  I'm not arguing that the Bible is "disgusting", though some of the history depicted in it is, by modern standards.  However, history is full of similar abuses, and I don't think the Biblical accounts are worse than their contemporaries--or possibly ours.  On the other hand, I don't know of any reason to think the history described in the Bible shows *less* abuse than their contemporaries, or ours.  That complex and benign moral traditions have evolved based on particular mythic interpretations of that history is interesting, but I still don't think it fair to take that long tradition of interpretation and use it to attack condemnation of the original history.
In article <C4vyFu.JJ6@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu> bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes:  >Keith M. Ryan (kmr4@po.CWRU.edu) wrote: >:  >: 	Wild and fanciful claims require greater evidence. If you state that  >: one of the books in your room is blue, I certainly do not need as much  >: evidence to believe than if you were to claim that there is a two headed  >: leapard in your bed. [ and I don't mean a male lover in a leotard! ] > >Keith,  > >If the issue is, "What is Truth" then the consequences of whatever >proposition argued is irrelevent. If the issue is, "What are the consequences >if such and such -is- True", then Truth is irrelevent. Which is it to >be?  	I disagree: every proposition needs a certain amount of evidence  and support, before one can believe it. There are a miriad of factors for  each individual. As we are all different, we quite obviously require  different levels of evidence.  	As one pointed out, one's history is important. While in FUSSR, one  may not believe a comrade who states that he owns five pairs of blue jeans.  One would need more evidence, than if one lived in the United States. The  only time such a statement here would raise an eyebrow in the US, is if the  individual always wear business suits, etc.  	The degree of the effect upon the world, and the strength of the  claim also determine the amount of evidence necessary. When determining the  level of evidence one needs, it is most certainly relevent what the  consequences of the proposition are.    	If the consequences of a proposition is irrelvent, please explain  why one would not accept: The electro-magnetic force of attraction between  two charged particles is inversely proportional to the cube of their  distance apart.   	Remember, if the consequences of the law are not relevent, then we can not use experimental evidence as a disproof. If one of the  consequences of the law is an incongruency between the law and the state of  affairs, or an incongruency between this law and any other natural law,  they are irrelevent when theorizing about the "Truth" of the law.  	Given that any consequences of a proposition is irrelvent, including  the consequence of self-contradiction or contradiction with the state of  affiars, how are we ever able to  judge what is true or not; let alone find "The Truth"?    	By the way, what is "Truth"? Please define before inserting it in  the conversation. Please explain what "Truth" or "TRUTH" is. I do think that  anything is ever known for certain. Even if there IS a "Truth", we could  never possibly know if it were. I find the concept to be meaningless.  --          "Satan and the Angels do not have freewill.           They do what god tells them to do. "
Keith M. Ryan (kmr4@po.CWRU.edu) wrote: :  : 	Wild and fanciful claims require greater evidence. If you state that  : one of the books in your room is blue, I certainly do not need as much  : evidence to believe than if you were to claim that there is a two headed  : leapard in your bed. [ and I don't mean a male lover in a leotard! ]  Keith,   If the issue is, "What is Truth" then the consequences of whatever proposition argued is irrelevent. If the issue is, "What are the consequences if such and such -is- True", then Truth is irrelevent. Which is it to be?
In article <1993Apr13.173100.29861@ultb.isc.rit.edu> snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:  >>I'm only saying that anything can happen under atheism.  Being a >>beleiver, a knowledgeable one in religion, only good can happen.  This is becoming a tiresome statement.  Coming from you it is  a definition, not an assertion:     Islam is good.  Belief in Islam is good.  Therefore, being a     believer in Islam can produce only good...because Islam is    good. Blah blah blah.  That's about as circular as it gets, and equally meaningless.  To say that something produces only good because it is only good that  it produces is nothing more than an unapplied definition.  And all you're application is saying that it's true if you really  believe it's true.  That's silly.  Conversely, you say off-handedly that _anything_ can happen under atheism.  Again, just an offshoot of believe-it-and-it-becomes-true- don't-believe-it-and-it-doesn't.    Like other religions I'm aquainted with, Islam teaches exclusion and caste, and suggests harsh penalties for _behaviors_ that have no logical call for punishment (certain limits on speech and sex, for example).  To me this is not good.  I see much pain and suffering without any justification, except for the _waving of the hand_ of some inaccessible god.  By the by, you toss around the word knowledgable a bit carelessly. For what is a _knowledgeable believer_ except a contradiction of terms.  I infer that you mean believer in terms of having faith. And If you need knowledge to believe then faith has nothing to do with it, does it?
In article <11820@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes: >From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) >Subject: Re: some thoughts. >Keywords: Dan Bissell >Date: 15 Apr 93 18:21:21 GMT >In article <bissda.4.734849678@saturn.wwc.edu> bissda@saturn.wwc.edu (DAN LAWRENCE BISSELL) writes: >> >>	First I want to start right out and say that I'm a Christian.  It  >>makes sense to be one.  Have any of you read Tony Campollo's book- liar,  >>lunatic, or the real thing?  (I might be a little off on the title, but he  >>writes the book.  Anyway he was part of an effort to destroy Christianity,  >>in the process he became a Christian himself. > >  This should be good fun.  It's been a while since the group has >  had such a ripe opportunity to gut, gill, and fillet some poor >  bastard.   > >  Ah well.  Off to get the popcorn... > >/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\  > >Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM  > >They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away, >and sank Manhattan out at sea. > >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I hope you're not going to flame him.  Please give him the same coutesy you' ve given me.
who: kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) what: <kmr4.1426.733987668@po.cwru.edu> with: rush@leland.Stanford.EDU  what: <1993Apr5.050524.9361@leland.Stanford.EDU>   >>> Other readers: I just joined, but is this guy for real? >>> I'm simply amazed.   KR> "Sadly yes. Don't loose any sleep over Old 'Zlumber. Just KR> have some fun with him, but he is basically harmless.  KR> At least, if you don't work in NY city."   I don't find it hard to believe that "Ole 'Zlumber" really believes the hate and ignorant prattle he writes. The frightening thought is, there are people even worse than he! To say that feminism equals "superiority" over men is laughable as long as he doesn't then proceed to pick up a rifle and start to shoot women as a preemptive strike--- aka the Canada slaughter that occured a few years ago. But then, men killing women is nothing new. Islamic Fundamentalists just have a "better" excuse (Qu'ran).       from the Vancouver Sun, Thursday, October 4, 1990     by John Davidson, Canadian Press       MONTREAL-- Perhaps it's the letter to the five-year old     daughter that shocks the most.       "I hope one day you will be old enough to understand what     happened to your parents," wrote Patrick Prevost. "I loved     your mother with a passion that went as far as hatred."       Police found the piece of paper near Prevost's body in his     apartment in northeast Montreal.       They say the 39-year-old mechanic committed suicide after     killing his wife, Jocelyne Parent, 31.       The couple had been separated for a month and the woman had     gone to his apartment to talk about getting some more money     for food. A violent quarrel broke out and Prevost attacked     his wife with a kitchen knife, cutting her throat, police said.       She was only the latest of 13 women slain by a husband or     lover in Quebec in the last five weeks.       Five children have also been slain as a result of the same     domestic "battles."       Last year in Quebec alone, 29 [women] were slain by their     husbands. That was more than one-third of such cases across     Canada, according to statistics from the Canadian Centre for     Justice. [rest of article ommited]   Then to say that women are somehow "better" or "should" be the one to "stay home" and raise a child is also laughable. Women have traditionally done hard labor to support a family, often  more than men in many cultures, throughout history. Seems to me it takes at least two adults to raise a child, and that BOTH should stay home to do so!
In article <115846@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:   (Deletion) >Certainly. It is a central aspect of Islam to show mercy and to give >those who've done wrong (even presuming Rushdie _did_ violate Islamic >Law) and committed crimes. This was the basis for my posts regarding >leniency which seemed not to have penetrated Benedikt's skull.   You have demanded harsh punishments of several crimes. Repeating offenders have slipped in only as justification of harsh punishment at all. Typically religious doublespeak. Whenever you have contradictory statements you choose the possibility that suits your current argument.   It is disgusting that someone with ideas that would make Theodore KKKaldis feel cozy can go along under the protection of religion.