waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <930404.111651.1K0.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes: |> In article <1993Apr2.065230.18676@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> |> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes: |> >The "automobile system" kills non-driving passengers, not to mention |> >pedestrians.  You need not drive or even use a car to be killed by one. |>  |> Indeed, and it kills far more than a system of public transport would.  I am |> therefore entirely in favour of banning private cars and replacing them with |> trains, buses, taxis, bicycles, and so on.  Seconded.   I cycle to work each day, and if we could just get those damned cars and their cretinous drivers off the road, it would be a lot more fun.
In article <1r4lva$5vq@fido.asd.sgi.com>, livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: > In article <1993Apr20.102306.882@batman.bmd.trw.com>, jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes: > |> In article <1993Apr20.062328.19776@bmerh85.bnr.ca>,  > |> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes: > |>  > |> [...]  [....] > |>  > |> Wait a minute, Doug.  I know you are better informed than that.  The US  > |> has never invaded Nicaragua (as far as I know). >  > The US invaded Nicaragua several times this century, including  > October 1912, andf again in February 1927. >  > Haiti was occupied in 1915.  Thanks Jon.  I had forgotten about the 1912 and 1927 invasions (if I had ever learned of them.  I mean I *really* forgot!)  But I read the context as more recent, such as when the Sandinistas were expecting an "imminent" invasion from the U.S. which never happened.  I stand corrected.  Thanks.  >  > |>   Panama we invaded, true (twice this century).  >  > The US created Panama in the first place by fomenting and then > intervening in a civil war in the then-Republic of Colombia. >  > US troops landed in Colombia, to "help" with the uprising, and then > Colombia was duly dismembered and replaced by two countries, in  > order that the US could build the Panama Canal in the new Republic > of Panama. >   I remembered this one.  This one and Bush's invasion were the two I mentioned above.  Good ol' Teddy R.-- he knew how to get things done!  > jon.  Regards,
In article <115561@bu.edu>, jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) wrote:  >Khomeini advocates the view that > there was a series of twelve Islamic leaders (the Twelve Imams) who > are free of error or sin. This makes him a heretic. >   Wow, you're quicker to point out heresy than the Church in the Middle ages. Seriously though, even the Sheiks at Al-Azhar don't claim that the Shi'ites are heretics. Most of the accusations and fabrications about Shi'ites come out of Saudi Arabia from the Wahabis. For that matter you should read the original works of the Sunni Imams (Imams of the four madhabs). The teacher of at least two of them was Imam Jafar Sadiq (the sixth Imam of the Shi'ites).
In article <1ql8mdINN674@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes: > >But we were discussing it in relation to the death penalty.  And, the >Constitution need not define each of the words within.  Anyone who doesn't >know what cruel is can look in the dictionary (and we did). >    Or, with no dictionary available, they could gain first hand   knowledge by suffering through one of your posts.   /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\   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 <1993Apr05.174537.14962@watson.ibm.com> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:   > >In article <16BA7F16C.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de>, I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes: > >I didn't have time to read the rest of the posting, but >I had to respond to this. > >I am absolutely NOT a "Messianic Jew". >
I have an addition to the FAQ regarding "why are there no atheist hospitals."  If I recall correctly, Johns Hopkins was built to provide medical services without the "backing" of a religious group...thus making it a hospital "dedicated to the glory of [weak] atheism."  Might someone check up on this?
kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:  >>Then why do people keep asking the same questions over and over? >Because you rarely ever answer them.  Nope, I've answered each question posed, and most were answered multiple times.
In article <1qi3l5$jkj@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:  >I hope an Islamic Bank is something other than BCCI, which >ripped off so many small depositors among the Muslim >community in the Uk and elsewhere.  >jon.  Grow up, childish propagandist.
In article <C5r5C9.69B@unix.portal.com> danb@shell.portal.com (Dan E Babcock) writes:  >In article <C5qt5p.Mvo@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:  >>In article <115694@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:  >>>I think many reading this group would also benefit by knowing how >>>deviant the view _as I've articulated it above_ (which may not be >>>the true view of Khomeini) is from the basic principles of Islam.   >>From the point ov view of an atheist, I see you claim Khomeini wasn't >>practicing true Islam.  But I'm sure that he would have said the same about >>you.  How am I, a member of neither group, supposed to be able to tell which >>one of you two is really a true Muslim?  >Easy - just read the Koran. Because the Koran is perfect, there is >no possibility of disagreement. :-) :-)   Okay, I see smilies, so this isn't supposed to be a serious post. On the other hand, I would suppose it does has some motivation behind it. Apparently the idea is to poke fun at religion, but there is  presumably some sort of reasoning behind it. As an argument, this  statement is worthless. Presuming the Qur'an is a perfect religious  text (whatever that might be) there is still plenty of room for  disagreement about its implications for issues far from essentials.  I've already responded to the question of how a judgment might be made between two people who in fact _do_ disagree about Islam, which doesn't presume anything about the Qur'an other than its having sufficient clarity for all important disputes about the basic principles of Islam. This hardly constitutes a claim that no two people could have disagreements about _all_ issues relevant to Islam.
cfaehl@vesta.unm.edu (Chris Faehl) writes:  >Why is it more reasonable than the trend towards obesity and the trend towards >depression? You can't just pick your two favorite trends, notice a correlation  >in them, and make a sweeping statement of generality. I mean, you CAN, and  >people HAVE, but that does not mean that it is a valid or reasonable thesis.  >At best it's a gross oversimplification of the push-pull factors people  >experience.    I agree, I reckon it's television and the increase in fundamentalism.. You think its the increase in pre-marital sex... others thinks its because psychologists have taken over the criminal justice system and let violent criminals con them into letting them out into the streets... others think it's the increase in designer drugs... others think it's a communist plot. Basically the social interactions of all the changing factors in our society are far too complicated for us to control. We just have to hold on to the panic handles and hope that we are heading for a soft landing. But one things for sure, depression and the destruction of the nuclear family is not due solely to sex out of marriage.  Jeff.  >>  >>  Fred Rice <-- a Muslim, giving his point of view. >>  darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
>DATE:   Fri, 16 Apr 1993 14:15:20 +0100 >FROM:   mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> > >The latest news seems to be that Koresh will give himself up once he's >finished writing a sequel to the Bible. > >mathew
[This is SWF in another indirect post via Dan].  In article <1993Apr20.150829.27925@asl.dl.nec.com>, duffy@aslss02.asl.dl.nec.com (Joseph Duffy) writes: |> In article <1993Apr17.184948.4847@microsoft.com> russpj@microsoft.com (Russ Paul-Jones) writes: |> > |> >The same way that any theory is proven false.  You examine the predicitions |> >that the theory makes, and try to observe them.  If you don't, or if you |> >observe things that the theory predicts wouldn't happen, then you have some |> >evidence against the theory.  If the theory can't be modified to |> >incorporate the new observations, then you say that it is false. |> |> But how does one handle the nonrepeatability of the experiment? In many types of |> experiments the "prediction" is that the observed phenomena will happen again |> and be capable of being observed. For example, in chemistry someone may predict |> the outcome of a chemical reaction and then actually observe that reaction |> repeatedly.  There are several problems here. First, you are discussing only experimental procedures. Observational procedures are also useful.  The main criterion is attempting to verify an idea by using it to make prediction about as-yet unmade observations. The observations could be the result of an experiment, or they could be obsevations of activity occuring spontaneossly in nature, or they could even be observations of the lasting results of events long past. All that matters is that the observations be *new*.  This is what prediction is about in science - it is *not* about predicting the future except in this very restricted sense.  Secondly, repeatability can also take many forms.  It is really just the requirement that independent observers be able to verify the results. The observation of a fossil is 'repeatable', since any qualified observer may look at it (this is why the specimens are reqtined in a museum).  Also, there is the implicit prediction that future fossil finds will correspond to the current one.  New fossils are found often enough that this is tested regularly.  Many times a new fossil actually falsifies some conclusion made on the basis of previous fossils.  Unfortunately for you, the models that were falsified have alway been peripheral to the model of evolution we now have.  (For instance, the front legs of Tyrannosaurus rex turned out to have tremendous muscles, rather than being weakly endowed as previously believed).  So, in fact, histoircal science findings *are* repeatable in the necessary sense.  Just becuase you cannot go out and repeat the original event does *not* make it impossible to make valid observations.  [This is not to say that biologists would not go coo-coo if extra- terrestrial life were discovered - that could make the determination of the process of abiogenesis relatively easy].  -- sarima@teradata.com                     (formerly tdatirv!sarima)   or Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Kent Sandvik (sandvik@newton.apple.com) wrote: : In article <11838@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>, bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert : Beauchaine) wrote: : >   Someone spank me if I'm wrong, but didn't Lord, Liar, or Lunatic : >   originate with C.S. Lewis?  Who's this Campollo fellow anyway?  : I do think so, and isn't there a clear connection with the "I do : believe, because it is absurd" notion by one of the original : Christians (Origen?).  There is a similar statement attributed to Anselm, "I believe so that I may understand". In both cases reason is somewhat less exalted than anyone posting here could accept, which means that neither statement can be properly analysed in this venue.
In article <1qlf7gINN8sn@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes: |> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: |>  |> >In another part of this thread, you've been telling us that the |> >"goal" of a natural morality is what animals do to survive. |>  |> That's right.  Humans have gone somewhat beyond this though.  Perhaps |> our goal is one of self-actualization.  Humans have "gone somewhat beyond" what, exactly?    In one thread you're telling us that natural morality is what animals do to survive, and in this thread you are claiming that an omniscient being can "definitely" say what is right and what is wrong.   So what does this omniscient being use for a criterion?   The long- term survival of the human species, or what?  How does omniscient map into "definitely" being able to assign "right" and "wrong" to actions?  |>  |> >But suppose that your omniscient being told you that the long |> >term survival of humanity requires us to exterminate some  |> >other species, either terrestrial or alien. |>  |> Now you are letting an omniscient being give information to me.  This |> was not part of the original premise.  Well, your "original premises" have a habit of changing over time, so perhaps you'd like to review it for us, and tell us what the difference is between an omniscient being be able to assign "right" and "wrong" to actions, and telling us the result, is.   |>  |> >Does that make it moral to do so? |>  |> Which type of morality are you talking about?  In a natural sense, it |> is not at all immoral to harm another species (as long as it doesn't |> adversely affect your own, I guess).  I'm talking about the morality introduced by you, which was going to be implemented by this omniscient being that can "definitely" assign "right" and "wrong" to actions.  You tell us what type of morality that is.
Jon Livesey writes:  >So why do I read in the papers that the Qumram texts had "different >versions" of some OT texts.   Did I misunderstand?  Reading newspapers to learn about this kind of stuff is not the best idea in the world.  Newspaper reporters are notoriously ignorant on the subject of religion, and are prone to exaggeration in the interests of having a "real" story (that is, a bigger headline).  Let's back up to 1935.  At this point, we have the Masoretic text, the various targums (translations/commentaries in aramaic, etc.), and the Septuagint, the ancient greek translation.  The Masoretic text is the standard Jewish text and essentially does not vary.  In some places it has obvious corruptions, all of which are copied faithfully from copy to copy. These passages in the past were interpreted by reference to the targums and to the Septuagint.  Now, the septuagint differs from the masoretic text in two particulars: first, it includes additional texts, and second, in some passages there are variant readings from the masoretic text (in addition to "fixing"/predating the various corrupted passages).  It must be emphasized that, to the best of my knowledge, these variations are only signifcant to bible scholars, and have little theological import.  The dead sea scroll materials add to this an ancient *copy* of almost all of Isaiah and fragments of various sizes of almost all other OT books.  There is also an abundance of other material, but as far as I know, there is no sign there of any hebrew antecdent to the apocrypha (the extra texts in the septuagint).  As far as analysis has proceeded, there are also variations between the DSS texts and the masoretic versions.  These tend to reflect the septuagint, where the latter isn't obviously in error.  Again, though, the differences (thus far) are not significant theologically.  There is this big expectation that there are great theological surprises lurking in the material, but so far this hasn't happened.  The DSS *are* important because there is almost no textual tradition in the OT, unlike for the NT.
keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes: >mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes: >>>Perhaps we shouldn't imprision people if we could watch them closely >>>instead.  The cost would probably be similar, especially if we just >>>implanted some sort of electronic device. >>Why wait until they commit the crime?  Why not implant such devices in >>potential criminals like Communists and atheists? >  > Sorry, I don't follow your reasoning.  You are proposing to punish people > *before* they commit a crime?  What justification do you have for this?  Look up "irony", Keith.
mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:  >Nanci Ann Miller writes:  >>My favorite reply to the "you are being too literal-minded" complaint is >>that if the bible is really inspired by God and if it is really THAT >>important to him, then he would make damn certain all the translators and >>scribes and people interpreting and copying it were getting it right, >>literally.  If not, then why should I put ANY merit at all in something >>that has been corrupted over and over and over by man even if it was >>originally inspired by God?  >The "corrupted over and over" theory is pretty weak.  Comparison of the >current hebrew text with old versions and translations shows that the text >has in fact changed very little over a space of some two millennia.  This >shouldn't be all that suprising; people who believe in a text in this manner >are likely to makes some pains to make good copies. >--  Do you honestly hold to that tripe Charley? For a start there are enough current versions of the Bible to make comparisons to show that what you write above is utter garbage. Witness JW, Mormon, Catholic, Anglican, and Greek Orthodox Bibles. But to really convince you I'd have to take you to a good old library. In our local library we had a 1804 King James which I compared to a brand new, hot of God's tongue Good News Bible. Genesis was almost unrecognisable, many of the discrepencies between the four gospels had been edited from the Good News Bible. In fact the God of Good News was a much more congenial fellow I must say.   If you like I'll get the 1804 King James out again and actually give you some quotes. At least the headings haven't changed much.
In article <1993Apr13.213527.3706@ultb.isc.rit.edu> snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:  > How about people who are not religous?  Take the inner city.  There are > many people that care little for religion.  Lot of crime.  Lot of > murder.  This is the other end- lack of religion- that allows wrong to > happen.  I lived in Tokyo for a year and a half, and one of the many reasons why I intend to go back indefinitely is the freedom one enjoys when one can walk anywhere (and I mean *anywhere*) at any time of day or night and not feel uneasy, even if one's from an ethnic minority as I was.  Clues for Bobby (why do I bother?): (i) Tokyo is a city, and inner Tokyo is an inner city; (ii) there is a negligible level of violent crime, and a street murder will be a lead item on *national* TV news; (iii) the population is almost universally atheistic.  Next time I go for a stroll around Beirut at night, I'll let you know how it compares.  > Bobby Mozumder  Cheers  Simon
In article <1r2kt7$6e1@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: #In article <1qugin$9tf@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes: #|> In article <1qkogg$k@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: #|> #|> #And in that area, what you care about is whether someone is sceptical, #|> #critical and autonomous on the one hand, or gullible, excitable and #|> #easily led on the other. #|>  #|> Indeed I may.  And one may be an atheist and also be gullible, excitable #|> and easily led. #|>  #|> #I would say that a tendency to worship tyrants and ideologies indicates #|> #that a person is easily led.   Whether they have a worship or belief  #|> #in a supernatural hero rather than an earthly one seems to me to be #|> #beside the point. #|>  #|> Sure.  But whether or not they are atheists is what we are discussing, #|> not whether they are easily led.   # #Not if you show that these hypothetical atheists are gullible, excitable #and easily led from some concrete cause.   In that case we would also #have to discuss if that concrete cause, rather than atheism, was the #factor that caused their subsequent behaviour.  I'm not arguing that atheism causes such behaviour - merely that it is not relevant to the definition of atheism, which is 'lack of belief in  gods'.
edm@twisto.compaq.com (Ed McCreary) writes: > While we're on the topic of books, has anyone else noticed that Paine's > "The Age of Reason" is hard to find.  I've been wanting to pick up > a copy for a while, but not bad enough to mail order it.  I've noticed > though that none of the bookstores I go to seem to carry it.  I thought > this was supposed to be classic.  What's the deal?  Actually, I've got an entire list of books written by various atheist authors and I went to the largest bookstore in my area (Pittsburgh) and couldn't find _any_ of them.  What section of the bookstore do you find these kinds of books in?  Do you have to look in an "alternative" bookstore for most of them?  Any help would be appreciated (I can send you the list if you want).
Maddi Hausmann (madhaus@netcom.com) wrote: :  : And thank the Lord that Bill Connor has returned to set : us straight!  Now I know I can die happy when my Lexus : SE400 wipes out on that rain-slick curve in 1997.  The : rest of you had best straighten up, because your time  : is even more limited.  Most of you are going in the Flu : of 1994.  Maddi,  You know you're glad to have me visit ... But I won't stay long this time, just shopping around.
In article <C52oys.2CLJ@austin.ibm.com> yoder@austin.ibm.com (Stuart R. Yoder) writes: >:  >: Then what would it have to do with "in the universe"?  You theists >: cannot understand that inside the universe and outside the universe >: are two different places.  Put God outside the universe and you >: subtract from it the ability to interact with the inside of the >: universe, put it inside the universe and you impose the rules of >: physics on it. > >1.  God is outside the universe. >2.  Things outside the universe do not have 'the ability to interact >    with the inside of the universe'. >3.  Therefore God cannot interact inside the universe. > >(2) has no basis whatsoever.  You seem to have positive knowledge >about this.  	(2) is a corrallary of (1).  	The negation of (2) would contridict (1).  > >: Although we do not have a complete model of the physical rules >: governing the inside of the universe, we expect that there are no >: contradictory events likely to destroy the fabric of modern physics. >: On the other hand, your notion of an omnipotent, omniscient and >: infinitely benevolent god, is not subject to physical laws: you >: attempt to explain this away by describing it as being outside of >: them, beyond measurement.  To me, beyond measurement means it can >: have no measurable effect on reality, so it cannot interact: ergo, >: your god is IRRELEVANT. > >1.  God is beyond measure. >2.  Beyond measurement means it can have no measurable effect on >    reality. >3.  Therefore God cannot have a measurable effect on reality. > >(2) has no basis whatsoever.    (2) Is a corrallary of (1)    The negation of (2) would contradict (1). --          "Satan and the Angels do not have freewill.           They do what god tells them to do. "