waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <1ql667INN54a@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes: |> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: |>  |> >I don't expect the lion to know, or not know anything of the kind. |> >In fact, I don't have any evidence that lions ever consider such  |> >issues. |> >And that, of course, is why I don't think you can assign moral |> >significance to the instinctive behaviour of lions. |>  |> What I've been saying is that moral behavior is likely the null behavior. |> That is, it doesn't take much work to be moral, but it certainly does to |> be immoral (in some cases).  That's the craziest thing I ever heard.   Are you serious?  	"it doesn't take much work to be moral?"  |> Also, I've said that morality is a remnant of evolution.    Really?   And that's why people discuss morality on a daily basis? Because it's a kind of evolutionary hangover, like your little toe?  |> Our moral system is based on concepts well practiced in the animal  |> kingdom.  This must be some novel use of the phrase "based on" with which I am not sufficiently familiar.    What do you mean by "based on" and  what is the significance of it for your argument?  |>  |> >>So you are basically saying that you think a "moral" is an undefinable |> >>term, and that "moral systems" don't exist?  If we can't agree on a |> >>definition of these terms, then how can we hope to discuss them? |> > |> >No, it's perfectly clear that I am saying that I know what a moral |> >is in *my* system, but that I can't speak for other people. |>  |> But, this doesn't get us anywhere.  Your particular beliefs are irrelevant |> unless you can share them or discuss them...  Well, we can.   What would you like to know about my particular moral beliefs?  If you raise a topic I've never considered, I'll be quite happy to  invent a moral belief out of thin air.
In <1qkq9t$66n@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp writes:  (Attempting to define 'objective morality'):  > I'll take a wild guess and say Freedom is objectively valuable.  I base > this on the assumption that if everyone in the world were deprived utterly > of their freedom (so that their every act was contrary to their volition), > almost all would want to complain.        So long as you keep that "almost" in there, freedom will be a mostly valuable thing, to most people. That is, I think you're really saying, "a real big lot of people agree freedom is subjectively valuable to them". That's good, and a quite nice starting point for a moral system, but it's NOT UNIVERSAL, and thus not "objective".  > Therefore I take it that to assert or > believe that "Freedom is not very valuable", when almost everyone can see > that it is, is every bit as absurd as to assert "it is not raining" on > a rainy day.        It isn't in Sahara.
In article <1quc6u$8qu@cc.tut.fi>, a137490@lehtori.cc.tut.fi (Aario Sami) writes: |> In <114902@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes: |>  |> >In article <C53JqD.MDB@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes: |> >>In article <114320@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes: |>  |> >>>It has been asked why no counter-fatwa has been issued against |> >>>Khomenei's condemnation of Rushdies because of his _Satanic Verses_. |> >>>The reason is basically that the "satanic verses" from which Rushdie |> >>>took his title are a serious matter not to be played around with by |> >>>anyone who cares about Islam. |>  |> >>This shouldn't matter. |>  |> >That's your opinion, which I am sorry to say is irrelevant. |>  |> >Gregg |>  |> This guy sounds more than a little borg-ish!  Vell, this is perfectly normal behaviour Vor a Vogon, you know?
In article <1993Apr16.222525.16024@bnr.ca> (Rashid) writes: >In article <1993Apr16.171722.159590@zeus.calpoly.edu>, >jmunch@hertz.elee.calpoly.edu (John Munch) wrote: >>  >> In article <1993Apr15.212943.15118@bnr.ca> (Rashid) writes: >> >P.S. I'm not sure about this but I think the charge of "shatim" also >> >applies to Rushdie and may be encompassed under the umbrella >> >of the "fasad" ruling. >>  >> Please define the words "shatim" and "fasad" before you use them again. > >My apologies. "Shatim", I believe, refers to slandering or spreading >slander and lies about the Prophets(a.s) - any of the Prophets.  Basically, any prophet I've ever dealt with has either been busy  hawking stolen merchandise or selling swampland house lots in  Florida.  Then you hear all the stories of sexual abuse by prophets and how the families of victims were paid to keep quiet about it.  >It's a kind of willful caulmny and "cursing" that's indicated by the >word. This is the best explanation I can come up with off the top >of my head - I'll try and look up a more technical definition when I >have the time.  Never mind that, but let me tell you about this Chevelle I bought  from this dude (you guessed it, a prophet) named Mohammed.  I've got the car for like two days when the tranny kicks, then Manny,  my mechanic, tells me it was loaded with sawdust!  Take a guess whether "Mohammed" was anywhere to be found.  I don't think so.  > >"Fasad" is a little more difficult to describe. Again, this is not >a technical definition - I'll try and get that later. Literally,  Oh, Mohammed!  >the word "fasad" means mischief. But it's a mischief on the order of >magnitude indicated by the word "corruption". It's when someone who >is doing something wrong to begin with, seeks to escalate the hurt,  Yeah, you, Mohammed!  >disorder, concern, harm etc. (the mischief) initially caused by their  >actions. The "wrong" is specifically related to attacks against >"God and His Messenger" and mischief, corruption, disorder etc.  You slimy mass of pond scum!  >resulting from that. The attack need not be a physical attack and there >are different levels of penalty proscribed, depending on the extent >of the mischief and whether the person or persons sought to  >"make hay" of the situation. The severest punishment is death.  Yeah, right!  You're the one should be watching your butt.  You and your buddy Allah.  The stereo he sold me croaked after two days. Your ass is grass!  Jim
bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:  >  And in the US, even that argument doesn't stand.  It costs far >  more to execute a criminal in this country than it does to feed, >  clothe, and shelter them for the remainder of their natural life. >  Some people believe this is a fault of our judicial system.  I >  find it to be one of it's greatest virtues.  I assume that you are talking about the appeals processes, etc.? Well, it should be noted that people who are imprisoned for life will also tend to appeal (though not quite as much in the "final hours."  Anyway, economics is not a very good reason to either favor or oppose the punishment.
Is it just me, or has this part gotten beyond useful?  Gregg is not, as I understand his posts, giving any support to the bounty on Rushdie's life.  If that's correct, end of one point...  Gregg is using the concept of legal in a way most Westerners don't accept. His comments about Islamic Law I think make a great deal of sense to him, and are even making a _little_ sense to me now - if a person is a member of a group (religion or whatever) they bind themselves to follow the ways of the group within the bounds of what the group requires as a minimum. The big bone of contention here that I'm picking up is that in the West we have secular governments that maintain, more or less, a level of control and of requirements outside the requirements of optional groups.  I think the majority of us reading this thread are in tune (note - I didn't say "in agreement") with the idea that you are finally responsible to the secular government,  and within that to the group or groups a person may have chosen.  With that in mind, it not possible under secular law ("legally" as most people would define the term) to hold a person to a particular group once they decide to separate from it.  Only if the secular authorities agree that there is a requirement of some sort (contractual, etc) is there any secular _enforcement_ allowed by a group to a group member or past group member.  A religion can, and often does, believe in and require additional duties of a group member.  And it can enforce the fulfillment of those duties in many ways - ostracism is common for example.  But the limit comes when the enforcement would impose unwanted and/or unaccepted onus on a person _in conflict with secular law_.  This is the difference.  In a theocracy, the requirements of the secular authorities are, by definition, congruent with the religious authorities. Outside a theocracy, this is not _necessarily_ true.  Religious requirements _may_ coincide or may not.  Similiarly, religious consequences _may_ or may not coincide with secular consequences (if any).  Regards,  Dew
>DATE:   19 Apr 93 23:23:26 GMT >FROM:   Bake Timmons <timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu> > >My my, there _are_ a few atheists with time on their hands.  :) > >OK, first I apologize.  I didn't bother reading the FAQ first and so fired an >imprecise flame.  That was inexcusable. >  How about the nickname Bake "Flamethrower" Timmons?  You weren't at the Koresh compound around noon today by any chance, were you?  Remember, Koresh "dried" for your sins.
Scott D. Sauyet (SSAUYET@eagle.wesleyan.edu) wrote: > In <1993Apr21.163848.8099@cs.nott.ac.uk>  > Kevin Anthony (kax@cs.nott.ac.uk) writes:  > > Firstly, I'm not impressed with the ability of algorithms. They're > > great at solving problems once the method has been worked out, but not > > at working out the method itself. >   [ .. crossword example deleted ... ]  > Have you heard of neural networks?  I've read a little about them, and > they seems to overcome most of your objections.  I'm sure there are many people who work with neural networks and read this newsgroup. Please tell Kevin what you've achieved, and what you expect.  > I am not saying that NNs will solve all such problems, but I think > they show that it is not as hard as you think to come up with > mechanical models of consciousness.  Indeed. I think dualism is a non-solution, or, as Dennett recently put it, a dead horse.   Petri
I can (and do) take religious writings as a metaphor for life. I do this with all sorts of fiction, from Beowolf to Deep Space Nine. The idea is to not limit yourself to one book, screen out the good  stuff from what you read, and to remember that it is all just a story.   You sound Buddist to me :^)
In article <C5L1Ey.Jts@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes: >In <11825@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes: > > >>  Actually, my atheism is based on ignorance.  Ignorance of the >>  existence of any god.  Don't fall into the "atheists don't believe >>  because of their pride" mistake. > >How do you know it's based on ignorance, couldn't that be wrong? Why would it >be wrong  >to fall into the trap that you mentioned?  >    If I'm wrong, god is free at any time to correct my mistake.  That   he continues not to do so, while supposedly proclaiming his   undying love for my eternal soul, speaks volumes.    As for the trap, you are not in a position to tell me that I don't   believe in god because I do not wish to.  Unless you can know my   motivations better than I do myself, you should believe me when I   say that I earnestly searched for god for years and never found   him.   /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\   Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM   They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away, and sank Manhattan out at sea.
dmn@kepler.unh.edu (...until kings become philosophers or philosophers become kings) writes: >      Recently, RAs have been ordered (and none have resisted or cared about > it apparently) to post a religious flyer entitled _The Soul Scroll: Thoughts > on religion, spirituality, and matters of the soul_ on the inside of bathroom > stall doors. (at my school, the University of New Hampshire) It is some sort > of newsletter assembled by a Hall Director somewhere on campus. It poses a > question about 'spirituality' each issue, and solicits responses to be  > included in the next 'issue.' It's all pretty vague. I assume it's put out > by a Christian, but they're very careful not to mention Jesus or the bible. > I've heard someone defend it, saying "Well it doesn't support any one religion. > " So what??? This is a STATE university, and as a strong supporter of the > separation of church and state, I was enraged. >  >      What can I do about this?  It sounds to me like it's just SCREAMING OUT for parody.  Give a copy to your friendly neighbourhood SubGenius preacher; with luck, he'll run it through the mental mincer and hand you back an outrageously offensive and gut-bustingly funny parody you can paste over the originals.  I can see it now:                                 The Stool Scroll          Thoughts on Religion, Spirituality, and Matters of the Colon                         (You can use this text to wipe)
In article <1993Apr19.141112.15018@cs.nott.ac.uk>, eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk (A.Wainwright) writes: > Hi, >  > I have been having an argument about the origins of the bible lately with > a theist acquaintance.  He stated that thousands of bibles were discovered > at a certain point in time which were syllable-perfect.  This therefore > meant that there must have been one copy at a certain time; the time quoted > by my acquaintace was approximately 50 years after the death of Jesus.  You can tell your friend from me that I was in a publisher's warehouse one time and saw thousands of copies of The Joy of Cooking and every one of them was syllable-perfect.  I have since sold all I own and become a follower of The Joy of Cooking.  The incident I mentioned convinced me, once and for all, that The Joy of Cooking is inspired by god and the one true path to his glory.
In article <kmr4.1696.735588167@po.CWRU.edu>, kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes: >  > [34mAnd now . . . [35mDeep Thoughts[0m > 	[32mby Jack Handey.[0m >  > [36mIf you go parachuting, and your parachute doesn't open, and your > friends are all watching you fall, I think a funny gag would be > to pretend you were swimming.[0m  You fall if it opens, too.  Gravity:  it's not just a good idea; it's the law.
rubble@leland.Stanford.EDU (Adam Heath Clark) writes: >	It seems a very large part of Christianity is based on the notion that >it is the _right_ religion, and that just about any other way of looking at >the universe is flat-out wrong.  In the old days we had the Inquisition and the >burning of heretics; now we have Pat Buchanan trying to start some cultural >war because he can't stand to live in the same country as all these other, >non-"God fearing" people.
In article <pww-210493010443@spac-at1-59.rice.edu>, pww@spacsun.rice.edu (Peter > > Simple logic arguments are folly.  If you read the Bible you will see > > that Jesus made fools of those who tried to trick him with "logic". > > Our ability to reason is just a spec of creation.  Yet some think it is > > the ultimate.  If you rely simply on your reason then you will never > > know more than you do now.   To learn you must accept that which > > you don't know. >  > Can anyone eaplain what he's just said here?  I can't. It seems Jesus used logic to make people using logic look like fools? No, that does not sound right, he maybe just told they were fools, and that's it, and people believed that... Hmm, does not sound reasonable either...  I find it always very intriguing to see people stating that transcendental values can't be explained, and then in the next sentence they try to explain these unexplained values. Highly strange.  Cheers, Kent
Hello Gang,  There have been some notes recently asking where to obtain the DARWIN fish. This is the same question I have and I have not seen an answer on the net. If anyone has a contact please post on the net or email me.  Thanks,
In article <1993Apr17.080321.18675@daffy.cs.wisc.edu>, mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes: |> In article <1ql9a6$afp@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: |> >In article <1ql0ajINN2kj@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes: |> >|> 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? |> > |> >jon. |> Hey, must is a verb in some languages.  Just happens it is only a modifier |> in English.  But, the verb of the sentence is to have.  This is modified |> by "must".    I know that "must" is a verb in some languages.   I'm complaining about the assertion containing the word must.
Kent Sandvik and Jon Livesey made essentially the same response, so this time Kent's article gets the reply:  >I agree, but this started at one particular point in time, and we  >don't know when this starting point of 'accurately copied scriptures' >actually happened.   This begs the question of whether it ever "started"-- perhaps because accuracy was always an intention.  >Even worse, if the events in NT were not written by eye witness accounts (a >high probability looking at possible dates when the first Gospels were >ready) then we have to take into account all the problems with information >forwarded with the 'telephone metaphor', indeed.  It makes little difference if you have eyewitnesses or people one step away (reporters, if you will).  As I said earlier, the "telephone" metaphor is innately bad, because the purpose of a game of telephone is contrary to the aims of writing these sorts of texts.  (Also, I would point out that, by the standards generally asserted in this group, the distinction between eyewitnesses and others is hollow, since nobody can be shown to be an eyewitness, or indeed, even shown to be the author of the text.)  There is no evidence that the "original" texts of either the OT or the NT are largely lost over time in a sea of errors, "corrections", additions and deletions.  In the case of the NT, the evidence is strongly in the other direction: the Textus R. and the Nestle-Aland text do not differ on more than a low level of significance.  It is reasonable to assume a similar situation for the OT, based on the NT as a model.
watson@sce.carleton.ca (Stephen Watson) writes: >kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes: >>In article <healta.171.735538331@saturn.wwc.edu> healta@saturn.wwc.edu >>(Tammy R Healy) writes: >>>>        "FBI officials said cult leader David Koresh may have  >>>>         forced followers to remain as flames closed in. Koresh's  >>>>         armed guard may have injected as many as 24 children with  >>>>         poison to quiet them." >>>> >>>Do the FBI have proof of this yet?! >  >>    Why ask me? I am only quoting the FBI official. Why not ask the FBI? >  > Myabe they're lying to cover up, or maybe they're telling the truth.  The 24 children were, of course, killed by a lone gunman in a second story window, who fired eight bullets in the space of two seconds...
In article <1r1mr8$eov@aurora.engr.LaTech.edu> ray@engr.LaTech.edu (Bill Ray) writes: >Todd Kelley (tgk@cs.toronto.edu) wrote: >: Faith and dogma are dangerous.   > >Faith and dogma are inevitable.  Christians merely understand and admit >to the fact.  Give me your proof that no God exists, or that He does.   >Whichever position you take, you are forced to do it on faith.  It does >no good to say you take no position, for to show no interest in the  >existence of God is to assume He does not exist.  Absolutely not true. Without religion - either an established one or one you invent for yourself - the theist and atheist are equally (not) interested in God, because without religious revelation there is _no_ information about God available. Strip away the dogma and the theists/atheists are no different, simply holding a different opinion on a matter of little practical importance.  >I contend that proper implementation of the Christian faith requires >reasoning, but that reasoning cannot be used to throw out things you >don't like, or find uncomfortable.  Hedonistic sexual behavior is  >condemned in the Bible and no act of true reason will make it any >less condemned.  Hatred, murder, gossip; all these are condemned. >Is there God-ordained murder in the Bible?  You bet, and if God ever >orders me to kill you, I will.  But I will first use the Gideon-like >behavior of verifying that God actually ordered the hit, and will  >probably discuss it in an Abram-like fashion.  Sorry, but that doesn't help. What test will you apply to decide whether it is God or Satan with whom you are speaking? How will you know that you have not simply gone insane, or having delusions? You are like a loaded gun.  >I can hear you now, this is how Jim Jones and David Koresh justify >their behavior.  Delusional religious cults bear the same relationship   Ah, you not as stupid as I assumed. :-)  >When the Southern Baptist Church or the Methodist Church begin to do this >then you have reason to blame mainstream religion for the behaviors of these >people.  Or should I associate every negative behavior I witness in any >non-Christian with you?  Yes. We're all in this together - each human making up a small part of the definition of humanity.
In article <1993Apr14.121134.12187@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:  >>In article <C5C7Cn.5GB@ra.nrl.navy.mil> khan@itd.itd.nrl.navy.mil (Umar Khan) writes:  >I just borrowed a book from the library on Khomeini's fatwa etc.  >I found this useful passage regarding the legitimacy of the "fatwa":  >"It was also common knowledge as prescribed by Islamic law, that the >sentence was only applicable where the jurisdiction of Islamic law >applies.  Moreover, the sentence has to be passed by an Islamic court >and executed by the state machinery through the due process of the law. >Even in Islamic countries, let alone in non-Muslim lands, individuals >cannot take the law into their own hands.  The sentence when passed, >must be carried out by the state through the usual machinery and not by >individuals.  Indeed it becomes a criminal act to take the law into >one's own hands and punish the offender unless it is in the process of >self-defence.  Moreover, the offender must be brought to the notice of >the court and it is the court who shoud decide how to deal with him. >This law applies equally to Muslim as well as non-Muslim territories.   I agree fully with the above statement and is *precisely* what I meant by my previous statements about Islam not being anarchist and the law not being _enforcible_ despite the _law_ being applicable.    >Hence, on such clarification from the ulama [Islamic scholars], Muslims >in Britain before and after Imam Khomeini's fatwa made it very clear >that since Islamic law is not applicable to Britain, the hadd >[compulsory] punishment cannot be applied here."   I disagree with this conclusion about the _applicability_ of the  Islamic law to all muslims, wherever they may be. The above conclusion  does not strictly follow from the foregoing, but only the conclusion  that the fatwa cannot be *enforced* according to Islamic law. However,  I do agree that the punishment cannot be applied to Rushdie even *were* it well founded.  >Wow... from the above, it looks like that from an Islamic viewpoint >Khomeini's "fatwa" constitutes a "criminal act" .... perhaps I could >even go out on a limb and call Khomeini a "criminal" on this basis....   Certainly putting a price on the head of Rushdie in Britain is a criminal  act according to Islamic law.    >Anyhow, I think it is understood by _knowledgeable_ Muslims that >Khomeini's "fatwa" is Islamically illegitimate, at least on the basis >expounded above.  Others, such as myself and others who have posted here >(particularly Umar Khan and Gregg Jaeger, I think) go further and say >that even the punishment constituted in the fatwa is against Islamic law >according to our understanding.  Yes.