waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <1rbpq0$ibg@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:   > >In article <16BBACBC3.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes: >#By the way, that's why I consider you a theist: > >[7 points, consisting of rhetorical fallacy, unsupported claims, and >demonstrable falsehoods deleted] >   No wonder that we don't see any detail for this claim. It is good to remember that you have answered the statement that you are a theist by another correspondent with that you are not a member of a denomination. It is either stupidity or an attempt at a trick answer. Not unlike the rest of your arguments.     >Mr. Roseneau, I have little patience with people who tell me what I >believe, and who call me a liar when I disagree.  I'm in a position >not only to know what it is that I believe, but to say so.  I am an >agnostic. >   I am extremely wary of the way you use words. Like in this case, there are broader definitions of gods used by persons who are considered by themselves and others theists. I have pointed to that in my post. You use one of them.   Your use of definitions seems to rest on the assumption: because my moral is objective/absolute or the other buzz words you are so fond of, everybody will know it, and there is no need to define it more exactly.   And as a user has shown recently, the easiest way to dispell you is to ask you for definitions.     >You are of course, free to speculate on my motives for objecting >to seeming irrational bigotry if you wish, but the flaws which I >point out in your arguments stand on their own merits.
In article <1993Apr19.231641.21652@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:   (Deletion) >"(God is) the One Who created the night, the day, the sun and the moon. >Each is travelling in an orbit with its own motion." (Qur'an :33) > >The positive aspect of this verse noted by Dr. Maurice Bucaille is that >while geocentrism was the commonly accepted notion at the time (and for >a long time afterwards), there is no notion of geocentrism in this verse >(or anywhere in the Qur'an). >   Well, that is certainly different, but it looks as if there is a translation found for everything. By the way, I am most surprised to hear that night and day move in an orbit.
jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes: > Mathew, I agree.  This, it seems, is the crux of your whole position, > isn't it?  That the US shouldn't have supported Hussein and sold him arms > to fight Iran?  I agree.  And I agree in ruthlessly hunting down those > who did or do.  But we *did* sell arms to Hussein, and it's a done deal. > Now he invades Kuwait.  So do we just sit back and say, "Well, we sold > him all those arms, I suppose he just wants to use them now.  Too bad > for Kuwait."  No, unfortunately, sitting back and "letting things be" > is not the way to correct a former mistake.  Destroying Hussein's > military potential as we did was the right move.  But I agree with > your statement, Reagan and Bush made a grave error in judgment to > sell arms to Hussein.  But it's STILL HAPPENING.  That's the entire point.  Only last month, John Major hailed it as a great victory that he had personally secured a sale of arms to Saudi Arabia.  The same month, we sold jet fighters to the same Indonesian government that's busy killing the East Timorese.  It's all very well to say "Oops, we made a boo-boo, better clean up the mistake", but the US and UK *keep* making the *same* mistake.  They do it so often that I can't believe it's not deliberate.  This suspicion is reinforced by the fact that the mistake is an extremely profitable one for a decrepit economy reliant on arms sales.  >                            So it's really not the Gulf War you abhor > so much, it was the U.S.'s and the West's shortsightedness in selling > arms to Hussein which ultimately made the war inevitable, right?  No, I thought both were terrible.
In article <C5rLyz.4Mt@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>, bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) wrote: >  > This is fascinating. Atheists argue for abortion, defend homosexuality > as a means of population control, insist that the only values are > biological and condemn war and capital punishment. According to > Benedikt, if something is contardictory, it cannot exist, which in > this case means atheists I suppose. > I would like to understand how an atheist can object to war (an > excellent means of controlling population growth), or to capital > punishment, I'm sorry but the logic escapes me. > And why just capital punishment, what is being questioned here, the > propriety of killing or of punishment? What is the basis of the > ecomplaint?  Bill, ever heard of secular humanism? Please check out what this stands for, and then revise your statements above.  Cheers, Kent
> In article <kmr4.1587.734911207@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.
In article <115847@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:  >Well, in 1984 one was not allowed to leave the domain of authority. One >_is_ free to leave Islam. If one regards Islamic law as a curse one >should consider leaving Islam.  	The only way out seems to be death.  ---      " I'd Cheat on Hillary Too."
(Short reply to Kent Sandvik's post remarking how it is strange that somehow Sufism is related to Islam, as [to him] they seem quite different.)  If one really understands Islam, it is not strange that Sufism is associated with it.  In fact, Sufism is (in general) seen as the "inner dimension" of Islam.  One of the "roots" of the word "Islam" is "submission" -- "Islam" denotes submission to God.  Sufism is the most complete submission to God imaginable, in "annihilating" oneself in God.  (I am not a Sufi or on the Sufi path, but have read a lot and recently have been discussing a number of things with others who are on the Sufi path.)
In article <1r2gi8$6e1@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: #In article <1qu485$58o@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes: #|> In article <1qkovl$k@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: #|> # #|> #False dichotomy.  You claimed the killing were *not* religiously #|> #motivated, and I'm saying that's wrong.   I'm not saying that #|> #each and every killing is religiously motivate, as I spelled out #|> #in detail. #|>  #|> Which killings do you say are religously motivated? # #For example, I would claim that the recent assassination of four #catholic construction workers who had no connection with the IRA #was probably religously motivated. # #|> At the time #|> of writing, I think that someone who claims the current violence is #|> motivated by religion is reaching. # #What would you call is when someone writes "The killings in N.I  #are not religously motivated?"  I'd say it was motivated by a primitive notion of revenge, and by misguided patriotism.  Otherwise, I'd have to wonder how come mainland catholics are not killed by mainland protestants, and southern catholics are not killed by southern protestants, and so on.  Take away all plausible causes bar religion, and the violence diminishes markedly. Gee, why _is_ that?  #|> Now, it's possible to argue that  #|> religion *in the past* is a major contributing factor to the violence in #|> the present, but I don't know of any evidence that this is so - and I'm #|> not enough of a historian to debate it.  # #Given that the avowed aim of the IRA is to take Northern Ireland #into a country that has a particular church written into its  #constitution, and which has restriction on civil rights dictated #by that Church, I fail to see why the word "past" is appropriate.  The country also has a different official language written in its constitution (and vice versa :-) - maybe they're motivated by a love of  Irish poetry.  Your argument is fallacious, jon.  For what it's worth, I agree with all that you say about Ireland above,  and more.
In article <66486@mimsy.umd.edu>, mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes: |> Jeff West writes: |>  |> >You claimed that people that took the time to translate the bible would |> >also take the time to get it right.  But here in less than a couple |> >generations you've been given ample proof (agreed to by yourself above) |> >that the "new" versions "tends to be out of step with other modern |> >translations." |>  |> What I said was that people took time to *copy* *the* *text* correctly. |> Translations present completely different issues.  So why do I read in the papers that the Qumram texts had "different versions" of some OT texts.   Did I misunderstand?
In article <1993Apr22.001442.27396@bnr.ca> (Rashid) writes: >In article <116171@bu.edu>, jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) wrote:  >>I have already made the clear claim that >> Khomeini advocates views which are in contradition with the Qur'an >> and have given my arguments for this. This is something that can be >> checked by anyone sufficiently interested. Khomeini, being dead, >> really can't respond, but another poster who supports Khomeini has >> responded with what is clearly obfuscationist sophistry. This should >> be quite clear to atheists as they are less susceptible to religionist >> modes of obfuscationism.   >Don't mind my saying this but the best example of obfuscation is to >condemn without having even your most basic facts straight. If you >want some examples, go back and look at your previous posts, where >you manage to get your facts wrong about the fatwa and Khomeini's  >supposed infallibility.  Why shouldn't I mind? It sounds as if you are proceeding with just the sort of obfuscation you have accused me of. I always preceeded my statements with "it is my understanding that..." Now, I have made my claim clear with regard to the issue of both the Twelve Imams and  with Khomeini's supposed claim of infalibility. After hearing your seemingly more knowledgable claim that Khomeini made no such claim regarding himself, I have withdrawn that portion of my statement regarding that claim. However, I have received _no_ such response regarding the infallibility of the Twelve Imams. There is nothing obfuscationist about my claims, which are always made clearly.   I have received no such clear response regarding the Twelve Imams but rather abstruse references to unusual metaphysical natures and  other such opaque "concepts" often used by people to camoflage the  baselessness of their positions, particularly in matters of theology. These are just the sorts of "concepts" used by Christian churches the perverting of their religion.   >As salaam a-laikum  Alaikum Wassalam,
cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:  >Merely a question for the basis of morality  >Moral/Ethical behavior = _Societally_ _acceptable_ _behavior_.  >1)Who is society  Society is the collection of individuals which will fall under self-defined rules.  In terms of UN decisions all the sets of peoples who are represented at the UN are considered part of that society. If we then look at US federal laws provided by representatives of purely US citizens then the society for that case would be the citizens of the US and so on.  >2)How do "they" define what is acceptable?  "Acceptable" are those behaviours which are either legislated for the society by representatives of that society or those behaviours which are non-verbally and, in effect, non-consciously, such as picking your nose on the Oprah Winfrey show, no-one does it, but there is no explicit law against doing it. In many cases there are is no definition of whether or not a behaviour is "acceptable", but one can deduce these behaviours by observation.   >3)How do we keep from a "whatever is legal is what is "moral" "position?  In an increasingly litigation mad society, this trap is becoming exceedingly difficult to avoid. With the infusion and strengthening of ethnic cultures in American (and Australian, to bring in my local perspective) culture the boundaries of acceptable behaviour are ever widening and legislation may eventually become the definition of moral behaviour. For instance, some cultures' dominant religion call for live sacrifice of domesticated animals. Most fundamental christians would find this practice abhorrent. However, is it moral, according to the multicultural american society? This kind of problem may only be definable by legislation.   Obviously within any society there will be differences in opinion in what is acceptable behaviour or not, and much of this will be due to different environmental circumstances rather than merely different opinions.    One thing is for sure, there is no universal moral code which will suit all cultures in all situations.  There may, however, be some globally accepted mores which can be agreed upon and instantiated as a globally enforcable concept. The majority of mores will not be common until all peoples upon this earth are living in a similar environment (if that ever happens).
In article <bissda.4.734849678@saturn.wwc.edu> bissda@saturn.wwc.edu (DAN LAWRENCE BISSELL) writes:  It appears that Walla Walla College will fill the same role in alt.atheist that Allegheny College fills in alt.fan.dan-quayle.  >	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.  Converts to xtianity have this tendency to excessively darken their pre-xtian past, frequently falsely.  Anyone who embarks on an effort to "destroy" xtianity is suffering from deep megalomania, a defect which is not cured by religious conversion.  >	The arguements he uses I am summing up.  The book is about whether  >Jesus was God or not.  I know many of you don't believe, but listen to a  >different perspective for we all have something to gain by listening to what  >others have to say.    Different perspective?  DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE??  BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!  >	The book says that Jesus was either a liar, or he was crazy ( a  >modern day Koresh) or he was actually who he said he was.  (sigh!)  Perhaps Big J was just mistaken about some of his claims. Perhaps he was normally insightful, but had a few off days.  Perhaps many (most?) of the statements attributed to Jesus were not made by him, but were put into his mouth by later authors.  Other possibilities abound.  Surely, someone seriously examining this question could come up with a decent list of possible alternatives, unless the task is not serious examination of the question (much less "destroying" xtianity) but rather religious salesmanship.  >	Some reasons why he wouldn't be a liar are as follows.  Who would  >die for a lie?  How many Germans died for Nazism?  How many Russians died in the name of the proletarian dictatorship?  How many Americans died to make the world safe for "democracy".  What a silly question!  >Wouldn't people be able to tell if he was a liar?  People  >gathered around him and kept doing it, many gathered from hearing or seeing  >someone who was or had been healed.  Call me a fool, but I believe he did  >heal people.    Is everyone who performs a healing = God?  >	Niether was he a lunatic.  Would more than an entire nation be drawn  >to someone who was crazy.  It's probably hard to "draw" an entire nation to you unless you  are crazy.  >Very doubtful, in fact rediculous.  For example  >anyone who is drawn to David Koresh is obviously a fool, logical people see  >this right away. >	Therefore since he wasn't a liar or a lunatic, he must have been the  >real thing.    Anyone who is convinced by this laughable logic deserves to be a xtian.  >	Some other things to note.  He fulfilled loads of prophecies in  >the psalms, Isaiah and elsewhere in 24 hrs alone.  This in his betrayal  >and Crucifixion.  I don't have my Bible with me at this moment, next time I  >write I will use it.
In article <sandvik-140493185248@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes: > >This is the reason I like the controversy of post-modernism, the >issues of polarities -- evil and good -- are just artificial  >constructs, and they fall apart during a closer inspection. > >The more I look into the notion of a constant struggle between >the evil and good forces, the more it sounds like a metaphor >that people just assume without closer inspection. >    More info please.  I'm not well exposed to these ideas.  /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\   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 <1993Apr10.191100.16094@ultb.isc.rit.edu> snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:  >Insults about the atheistic genocide was totally unintentional.  Under >atheism, anything can happen, good or bad, including genocide.  And you know why this is? Because you've conveniently _defined_ a theist as someone who can do no wrong, and you've _defined_ people who do wrong as atheists. The above statement is circular (not to mention bigoting), and, as such, has no value.
In <kmr4.1466.734160929@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:       >     "Wait. You just said that humans are rarely reasonable. Doesn't that >      contradict atheism, where everything is explained through logic and >      reason? This is THE contradiction in atheism that proves it false." >           --- Bobby Mozumder proving the existence of Allah, #2  Does anybody have Bobby's post in which he said something like "I don't know why there are more men than women in islamic countries. Maybe it's atheists killing the female children"? It's my personal favorite!
>>>>> On Wed, 21 Apr 1993 06:38:30 GMT, sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) said: KS> This is the story of Kent, the archetype Finn, that lives in the  KS> Bay Area, and tried to purchase Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason". This KS> man was driving around, to Staceys, to Books Inc, to "Well, Cleanlighted KS> Place", to Daltons, to various other places.  KS> When he asked for this book, the well educated American book store KS> assistants in most placed asked him to check out the thriller section, KS> or then they said that his book has not been published yet, but they KS> should receive the book soon. In some places the assistants bluntly KS> said that they don't know of such an author, or that he is not  KS> a well known living author, so they don't keep copies of his books.  KS> Such is the life and times of America, 200+ years after the revolution.  Sigh, now I don't feel so bad.  Searching for a copy in bookstores has been a habit of mine for at least two years now.  I spend a *lot* of  time browsing through bookstores, new and and used, and I've not once seen a copy.  Now, I know, all I do is pick up a phone and order the darned thing, but come on, this is America and he's one of the founding fathers.  And no one carries his books?  Sure, you can find "Common Sense" but I think that's because it's required reading for most colleges.    I did find one hole-in-the-wall bookstore where the owner said that they  usually carry one or two copies, but that they were currently out. I haven't been back since so I don't know if he was telling the truth or not.  sigh...
In article <930420.113512.1V3.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes: > mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes:  From a parallel thread.  Much about definitions of bombs, etc. deleted. [...]  >  >> Aaaahhh.  Tell me, how many innocents were killed in concentration camps? >> mm-hmm.  Now, how many more were scheduled to enter concentration camps >> had they not been shut down because they were captured by the allies? >> mm-hmm.  Now, civilians died in that war.  So no matter what you do, >> civilians die.  What is the proper course? >  > Don't sell the bastard arms and information in the first place.  Ruthlessly > hunt down those who do.  Especially if they're in positions of power. >   Mathew, I agree.  This, it seems, is the crux of your whole position, isn't it?  That the US shouldn't have supported Hussein and sold him arms to fight Iran?  I agree.  And I agree in ruthlessly hunting down those who did or do.  But we *did* sell arms to Hussein, and it's a done deal. Now he invades Kuwait.  So do we just sit back and say, "Well, we sold him all those arms, I suppose he just wants to use them now.  Too bad for Kuwait."  No, unfortunately, sitting back and "letting things be" is not the way to correct a former mistake.  Destroying Hussein's military potential as we did was the right move.  But I agree with your statement, Reagan and Bush made a grave error in judgment to sell arms to Hussein.  So it's really not the Gulf War you abhor so much, it was the U.S.'s and the West's shortsightedness in selling arms to Hussein which ultimately made the war inevitable, right?  If so, then I agree.  [more deleted.] >  > mathew  Regards,
In article <1993Apr5.124216.4374@mac.cc.macalstr.edu> acooper@mac.cc.macalstr.edu writes: > >I wonder how many atheists out there care to speculate on the face of the world >if atheists were the majority rather than the minority group of the population.   Probably we would have much the same problems with only a slight shift in emphasis.  Weekends might not be so inviolate (more common to work 7 days a week in a business), and instead of American Atheists, we would have similar, religious organizations.  A persons religious belief seems more as a crutch and justification for actions than a guide to determine actions. Of course, people would have to come up with more fascinating  rationalizations for their actions, but that could be fun to watch...  It seems to me, that for most people, religion in America doesn't matter that much.  You have extreemists on both ends, but a large majority don't make too much of an issue about it as long as you don't.  Now, admittedly, I have never had to suffer the "Bible Belt", but I am just north of it and see the fringes, and the reasonable people in most things tend to be reasonable in religion as well.     >Also, how many atheists out there would actually take the stance and accor a >higher value to their way of thinking over the theistic way of thinking.  The >typical selfish argument would be that both lines of thinking evolved from the >same inherent motivation, so one is not, intrinsically, different from the >other, qualitatively.  But then again a measuring stick must be drawn >somewhere, and if we cannot assign value to a system of beliefs at its core, >than the only other alternative is to apply it to its periphery; ie, how it >expresses its own selfishness. >  I don't bother according a higher value to my thinking, or just about anybodys thinking.  I don't want to fall in that trap.  Because if you  do start that, then you are then to decide which is better, says whom, why, is there a best, and also what to do about those who have inferior modes of thinking.  IDIC  (Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations.) I'll argue it over a soda, but not over much more.  Just my $.12  (What inflation has done...)
[By default, followups to 3 newsgroups.]  A short excerpt:  >	BROOKFIELD, Wis. (UPI) -- A mother has filed a complaint with the >Elmbrook School Board alleging her son's elementary school and its >Parent-Teacher Organization show discrimination by supporting the Boy >Scouts. >	Gisele Klemp said Wednesday the PTO's sponsorship of a Boy Scout >troop and Cub Scout pack that meet at Hillside Elementary School in >surbarban Milwaukee is discrimination because the Boy Scouts ban >homosexuals. [...] >	PTO President Gail Pludeman disputed the charges of discrimination >and said she believes the Boy Scouts are beneficial.