waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <116551@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:   (Deletion) >>That's was the original answer. While it does not say that he has the head >>necessarily up its ass, it would be meaningless and pointless if it was not >>insinuated. > > >I don't see a header referring to Bob as the poster to whom I was >responding. I distinctly remember thinking I was responding to you >when I wrote this, in which case I would make no apologies. But >in the event that I _was_ in fact responding to Bob, I hereby >apologize to Bob for _insinuating_ such a thing. Sorry Bob. >On the other hand, it could be that Ben has his head so far up >his ass that he can't tell himself from Bob. >   Sorry, Gregg, it was no answer to a post of mine. And you are quite fond of using abusing language whenever you think your religion is misrepresented. By the way, I have no trouble telling me apart from Bob Beauchaine.     I still wait for your answer to that the Quran allows you to beat your wife into submission. You were quite upset about the claim that it was in it, to be more correct, you said it wasn't.   I asked you about what your consequences were in case it would be in the Quran, but you have simply ceased to respond on that thread. Can it be that you have found out in the meantime that it is the Holy Book?
In article <pww-120493020107@spac-at1-59.rice.edu> pww@spacsun.rice.edu (Peter Walker) writes: >From: pww@spacsun.rice.edu (Peter Walker) >Subject: Re: A silly question on x-tianity >Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1993 07:06:33 GMT >In article <1qaqi1INNgje@gap.caltech.edu>, werdna@cco.caltech.edu (Andrew >Tong) wrote: >>
In <1993Mar31.013034.27070@ultb.isc.rit.edu> snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:  >My case is that everything wrong in the world will end if people start >believing in Islam.  And that horrors to mankind are all caused by the >lack of belief- Atheism.  For the last time, Bobby. Lack of belief in YOUR god does NOT imply atheism. Just because some moslems aren't moral does not mean they don't believe in a god named Allah, although their Allah may not do the things your Allah does. If a moslem says he/she believes that a god exists, he/she is a theist (though maybe not a TRUE follower of islam).  >30,000 murder victims a year caused by atheism. Poverty. Massive hate crimes. >Such low respect for the human body.  Distrust among people.  Everything >wrong, all caused by atheism.  >Peace,  Jerk.  >Bobby Mozumder
In article <sandvik-190493224221@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes: > >As I know you can't get any physical problems by passive Christianity, >unlike smoking. It's not that hard to avoid Christianity today, anyway. >Just ignore 'em. >    Right on Keith, err, Kent.      Whadda you mean, you didn't see the smiley?  /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\   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 <1993Apr22.062438.9412@nuscc.nus.sg>, cmtan@iss.nus.sg (Tan Chade Meng - dan) writes: > nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu (Nanci Ann Miller) writes: > : nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye) writes: > : > I read an article about a poll done of students at the Ivy League > : > schools in which it was reported that a third of the students > : > indentified themselves as atheists.  This is a lot higher than among the > : > general population.  I wonder what the reasons for this discrepancy are? > : > Is it because they are more intelligent?  Younger?  Is this the wave of > : > the future? >  > What is the figure for the general population?  The last I heard, 25% of > Americans believe in reincarnation.  Can somebody quote a stat?  I don't have a stat, but, unfortunately, I did read generally that both smoking and belief in the supernatural (occultish garbage) is on the rise here.   >  > : I would guess that it probably has something to do with the ease of which > : ideas and thoughts are communicated on a college campus.... > :  > : So, in a world where theists are forced to contend with and listen to > : atheists and theists of other religions some are bound to have a change in > : their beliefs over four years.  There is nowhere to run.... :-) >   > Funny.  In my country, it works the other way round.  Univ life is v. v. > stressful for most people (remember, we're an Asian population) & Xtians > like to prey on these people.  There is nowhere to run from them ...... :-< >   This is very interesting.  I thing the principle is sort of the same though: all "philosophical" ideas are generally tried out and tested mostly during college years.  Whether the idea is christian or atheist doesn't always matter. But I'd like to say it's because atheists are more intelligent  :)   > -- >  > The UnEnlightened One > ------------------+-------------------------------------------------------- >                   |  > Tan Chade Meng    | The wise man tells his wife that he understands her. > Singapore         |  > cmtan@iss.nus.sg  | The fool tries to prove it.  >                   |  > ------------------+-------------------------------------------------------- >  --   regards,  --Adam
In article <115468@bu.edu>, jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes: |> In article <1qg79g$kl5@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: |>  |> >You are amazed that I find it difficult to grasp it when |> >people justify death-threats against Rushdie with the  |> >claim "he was born Muslim?" |>  |> This is empty rhetoric. I am amazed at your inability to understand what |> I am saying not that you find it difficult to "grasp it when people |> justify death-threats...". I find it amazing that your ability to |> consider abstract questions in isolation. You seem to believe in the |> falsity of principles by the consequence of their abuse. You must *hate* |> physics!  You're closer than you might imagine.   I certainly despised living under the Soviet regime when it purported to organize society according to what they fondly imagined to be the "objective" conclusions of Marxist dialectic.  But I don't hate Physics so long as some clown doesn't start trying to control my life on the assumption that we are all interchangeable atoms, rather than individual human beings.
jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes: > Why would the Rushdie case be particularly legitimate? As I've said > elsewhere on this issue, Rushdie's actions had effects in Islamic > countries so that it is not so simple to say that he didn't commit > a crime in an Islamic country.  Actually, it is simple.  A person P has committed a crime C in country X if P was within the borders of X at the time when C was committed.  It doesn't matter if the physical manifestation of C is outside X.  For instance, if I hack into NASA's Ames Research Lab and delete all their files, I have committed a crime in the United Kingdom.  If the US authorities wish to prosecute me under US law rather than UK law, they have no automatic right to do so.  This is why the net authorities in the US tried to put pressure on some sites in Holland.  Holland had no anti-cracking legislation, and so it was viewed as a "hacker haven" by some US system administrators.  Similarly, a company called Red Hot Television is broadcasting pornographic material which can be received in Britain.  If they were broadcasting in Britain, they would be committing a crime.  But they are not, they are broadcasting from Denmark, so the British Government is powerless to do anything about it, in spite of the apparent law-breaking.  Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so I could be wrong.  More confusingly, I could be right in some countries but not in others...
Joel Hanes (jjh00@diag.amdahl.com) wrote:  : Mr Connor's assertion that "more complex" == later in paleontology : is simply incorrect.  Many lineages are known in which whole : structures are lost -- for example, snakes have lost their legs. : Cave fish have lost their eyes.  Some species have almost completely : lost their males.  Kiwis are descended from birds with functional : wings.  Joel,  The statements I made were illustrative of the inescapably anthrpomorphic quality of any desciption of an evolutionary process. There is no way evolution can be described or explained in terms other than teleological, that is my whole point. Even those who have reason to believe they understand evolution (biologists for instance) tend to personify nature and I can't help but wonder if it's because of the limits of the language or the nature of nature.
Hi!  I don't know much about Mormons, and I want to know about serious independent studies about the Book of Mormon.  I don't buy the 'official' story about the gold original taken to heaven, but haven't read the Book of Mormon by myself (I have to much work learning Biblical Hebrew), I will appreciate any comment about the results of study in style, vocabulary, place-names, internal consistency, and so on.  For example: There is evidence for one-writer or multiple writers? There are some mention about events, places, or historical persons later discovered by archeologist?  Yours in Collen  Andres Grino Brandt               Casilla 14801 - Santiago 21 agrino@enkidu.mic.cl                        Chile
In <16BA6C947.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:  >In article <1993Apr3.081052.11292@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> >darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes: >  >>There has been some discussion on the pros and cons about sex outside of >>marriage. >> >>I personally think that part of the value of having lasting partnerships >>between men and women is that this helps to provide a stable and secure >>environment for children to grow up in. >(Deletion) >  >As an addition to Chris Faehl's post, what about homosexuals?  Well, from an Islamic viewpoint, homosexuality is not the norm for society.  I cannot really say much about the Islamic viewpoint on homosexuality  as it is not something I have done much research on.
In article <N4HY.93Apr5120934@harder.ccr-p.ida.org>, n4hy@harder.ccr-p.ida.org (Bob McGwier) writes:  |> [1] HOWEVER, I hate economic terrorism and political correctness |> worse than I hate this policy.     |> [2] A more effective approach is to stop donating |> to ANY organizating that directly or indirectly supports gay rights issues |> until they end the boycott on funding of scouts.    Can somebody reconcile the apparent contradiction between [1] and [2]?
In article <1993Apr19.120352.1574@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>, darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) wrote: >> The problem with your argument is that you do not _know_ who is a _real_ > believer and who may be "faking it".  This is something known only by > the person him/herself (and God).  Your assumption that anyone who > _claims_ to be a "believer" _is_ a "believer" is not necessarily true.  So that still leaves the door totally open for Khomeini, Hussein et rest. They could still be considered true Muslims, and you can't judge them, because this is something between God and the person.  You have to apply your rule as well with atheists/agnostics, you don't know their belief, this is something between them and God.  So why the hoopla about Khomeini not being a real Muslim, and the hoopla about atheists being not real human beings?  Cheers, Kent
In article <1993Apr15.223844.16453@rambo.atlanta.dg.com>, wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) wrote: >  >     We are talking about origins, not merely science.   Science cannot >     explain origins.  For a person to exclude anything but science from >     the issue of origins is to say that there is no higher truth >     than science.  This is a false premise.  Says who? Other than a hear-say god.  >     By the way, I enjoy science.  You sure don't understand it.  >     It is truly a wonder observing God's creation.  Macroevolution is >     a mixture of 15 percent science and 85 percent religion [guaranteed >     within three percent error :) ]  Bill, I hereby award you the Golden Shovel Award for the biggist pile of bullshit I've seen in a whils. I'm afraid there's not a bit of religion in macroevolution, and you've made a rather grand statement that Science can not explain origins; to a large extent, it already has!  >             //  Bill Rawlins            <wpr@atlanta.dg.com>        //
sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:  >So how do you then explain sudden violent behavior of human beings? >Your theory would state that the more the human is detached from  >primitive behavior, the more violent and non-moralistic the human >becomes (please correct me if my understanding was wrong). So >you have this bifurcation point where a madman is killing people >from the roof of a campus. Could you explain how your 'theory' >explains such a situation?  Madmen are mad.  Do we try to explain the output from a broken computer? I think not.
In article 1r1cl7INNknk@bozo.dsinc.com, perry@dsinc.com (Jim Perry) writes: >Anyway, since I seem to be the only one following this particular line >of discussion, I wonder how many of the rest of the readership have >read this book?  What are your thoughts on it?    I read it. I found it wonderful. For some reason (no flames, please), I was reminded of Hemingway, Carl Orff and Van Gogh (not all at once, though).
bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:  >My personal objection is that I find capital punishment to be >cruel and unusual punishment under all circumstances.  It can be painless, so it isn't cruel.  And, it has occurred frequently since the dawn of time, so it is hardly unusual.  >I don't take issue with the numbers.  A single innocent life taken >is one too many.  But, innocents die due to many causes.  Why have you singled out accidental or false execution as the one to take issue with?
DN> I think I took on this 'liar, lunatic, or the real thing' DN> the last time. Or was it the time before?  Anyway, let DN> somebody else have a turn.  I can't debate it with a DN> straight face.  Or perhaps for something completely DN> different we could just ridicule him or gather up all the DN> posts from the last two times we did this and email them to DN> him.  As an aside, can you believe that somebody actually DN> got a book published about this?  Must have been a vanity DN> press.  I would recomend to anyone out there to visit your local Christian bookstore and become aware of the stuff they sell.	Quite interesting.  Most of the stuff is far from intelectual.  (About the level of Chick pamphelets...)  If it is a common fundie bookstore, it should have at least one section about how you should hate Wiccans, Pagans, Catholics, Mormons, rock musicians, and anyone else who is not as fanatical as them.  (Hate for the "Love of God(tm)"!) It is even more interesting watching the people who frequent such places.  Very scary people.  They hear voices from "God" telling them whatever they want to hear.  (If they were not Christians, most of them would be locked away.  Maybe this is why Federal money was reduced to Mental institutions by the reagan administration...	Had to get their religious leaders out...)  "Where would Christianity be if Jesus got eight to fifteen years, with time off for good behavior?" 	 New York State Senator James H. Donovan on Capitol Punishment                     Alan
>>>>> On Fri, 16 Apr 1993 14:15:20 +0100, mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> said:  m> The latest news seems to be that Koresh will give himself up once he's m> finished writing a sequel to the Bible.  Also, it's the 16th now.  Can the Feds get him on tax evasion?  I don't remember hearing about him running to the Post Office last night.
[reply to kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan)]   >Our Lord and Savior David Keresh has risen!   >He has been seen alive!   >Spread the word!   Jeez, can't he get anything straight.  I told him to wait for three days.   GOD
In article <1ql0d3$5vo@dr-pepper.East.Sun.COM> geoff@East.Sun.COM writes: >Your posting provoked me into checking my save file for memorable >posts. The first I captured was by Ken Arromdee on 19 Feb 1990, on the >subject "Re: atheist too?". That was article #473 here; your question >was article #53766, which is an average of about 48 articles a day for >the last three years. As others have noted, the current posting rate is >such that my kill file is depressing large...... Among the posting I >saved in the early days were articles from the following notables: > >>From: loren@sunlight.llnl.gov (Loren Petrich) >>From: jchrist@nazareth.israel.rel (Jesus Christ of Nazareth) >>From: mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) >>From: perry@apollo.HP.COM (Jim Perry) >>From: lippard@uavax0.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) >>From: minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) > >An interesting bunch.... I wonder where #2 is?  Didn't you hear?  His address has changed.  He can be reached at the  following address:  dkoresh@branch.davidian.compound.waco.tx.us  I think he was last seen posting to alt.messianic.  Jim
suopanki@stekt.oulu.fi writes: > On 5 Apr 93 11:24:30 MST, jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com said: > :> God is eternal.    [A = B] > :> Jesus is God.      [C = A] > :> Therefore, Jesus is eternal.  [C = B] >  > :> This works both logically and mathematically.  God is of the set of > :> things which are eternal.  Jesus is a subset of God.   Therefore > :> Jesus belongs to the set of things which are eternal. >  > Everything isn't always so logical.... >  > Mercedes is a car. > That girl is Mercedes. > Therefore, that girl is a car?  Unfortunately your phrasing is ambiguous.  Re-writing more carefully, we have (at least) two possibilities.  The first:  Things called "Mercedes" are cars That girl is called "Mercedes" Therefore that girl is a car  That is entirely valid as a piece of logical deduction.  It is not sound, because the first statement is false.  Similarly, I would hold that Jim's example is valid but not sound.  Another possible interpretation of what you wrote is:  There exists at least one car called "Mercedes" That girl is called "Mercedes" Therefore that girl is a car  -- which isn't valid.
In article <1993Apr6.041343.24997@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> stank@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Stan Krieger) writes:  >The point has been raised and has been answered.  Roger and I have >clearly stated our support of the BSA position on the issue; >specifically, that homosexual behavior constitutes a violation of >the Scout Oath (specifically, the promise to live "morally straight").  	Please define "morally straight".   	 	 	And, don't even try saying that "straight", as it is used here,  implies only hetersexual behavior. [ eg: "straight" as in the slang word  opposite to "gay" ]   	This is alot like "family values". Everyone is talking about them,  but misteriously, no one knows what they are. ---          "One thing that relates is among Navy men that get tatoos that          say "Mom", because of the love of their mom.  It makes for more          virile men."          Bobby Mozumder  ( snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu )         April 4, 1993
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:  >>But, if you were to discuss the merits of racism, or its psycholgical >>benefits, you would do well to have experienced it personally. >When you speak of "experiencing religion" you mean someone should believe in >a religion.  That's right, and this is pretty impossible, right?  It would be ideal if we could believe for a while, just to try out religion, and only then determine which course of thought suits us best.  But again, this is not possible.  Not that religion warrants belief, but the belief carries with it some psychological benefits.  There are also some psychological burdens, too.  >When you speak of "experiencing racism", do you mean that someone should >believe in racism, or that they should have racist things done to them?  For >parallelism, the former must be what you meant, but it seems to be an odd >usage of the phrase.  Well, if there were some psychological or other benefits gained from racism, they could only be fully understood or judged by persons actually "believing" in racism.  Of course, the parallel happens to be a poor one, but you originated it.
In article <1ql0ajINN2kj@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes: |> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes: |>  |> >>But chimps are almost human... |> >Does this mean that Chimps have a moral will? |>  |> Well, chimps must have some system.  They live in social groups |> as we do, so they must have some "laws" dictating undesired behavior.  Ah, the verb "to must".   I was warned about that one back in Kindergarten.  So, why "must" they have such laws?
In article <C5J718.Jzv@dcs.ed.ac.uk>, tk@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Tommy Kelly) wrote: > In article <1qjahh$mrs@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes: >  > >Science ("the real world") has its basis in values, not the other way round,  > >as you would wish it.   >  > You must be using 'values' to mean something different from the way I > see it used normally. >  > And you are certainly using 'Science' like that if you equate it to > "the real world". >  > Science is the recognition of patterns in our perceptions of the Universe > and the making of qualitative and quantitative predictions concerning > those perceptions.  Science is the process of modeling the real world based on commonly agreed interpretations of our observations (perceptions).  > It has nothing to do with values as far as I can see. > Values are ... well they are what I value. > They are what I would have rather than not have - what I would experience > rather than not, and so on.  Values can also refer to meaning.  For example in computer science the value of 1 is TRUE, and 0 is FALSE.  Science is based on commonly agreed values (interpretation of observations), although science can result in a reinterpretation of these values.  > Objective values are a set of values which the proposer believes are > applicable to everyone.  The values underlaying science are not objective since they have never been fully agreed, and the change with time.  The values of Newtonian physic are certainly different to those of Quantum Mechanics.
In article <1r0fpv$p11@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:   (Deletion) >#      Point: Morals are, in essence, personal opinions. Usually >#(ideally) well-founded, motivated such, but nonetheless personal. The >#fact that a real large lot of people agree on some moral question, >#sometimes even for the same reason, does not make morals objective; it >#makes humans somewhat alike in their opinions on that moral question, >#which can be good for the evolution of a social species. > >And if a "real large lot" (nice phrase) of people agree that there is a >football on a desk, I'm supposed to see a logical difference between the two? >Perhaps you can explain the difference to me, since you seem to see it >so clearly. > (rest deleted)   That's a fallacy, and it is not the first time it is pointed out. For one, you have never given a set of morals people agree upon. Unlike a football. Further, you conveniently ignore here that there are many who would not agree on tghe morality of something. The analogy does not hold.   One can expect sufficiently many people to agree on its being a football, while YOU have to give the evidence that only vanishing number disagrees with a set of morals YOU have to give.   Further, the above is evidence, not proof. Proof would evolve out of testing your theory of absolute morals against competing theories.