waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
markp@avignon (Mark Pundurs) writes: >mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes: >>markp@elvis.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes: >>> In <930415.112243.8v6.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk >>> (mathew) writes: >>> > There's no objective physics; Einstein and Bohr have told us that. >>>  >>> Speaking as one who knows relativity and quantum mechanics, I say:  >>> Bullshit. >  >>Speaking as someone who also knows relativity and quantum mechanics, I say: >>Go ahead, punk, make my day.  My degree can beat up your degree. >  > OK, refer us to the place in Einstein's (or Bohr's) writings where > he said 'there's no objective physics.'  Ah, you taking everything as literal quotation.  No wonder you're confused.  First, can I ask that we decide on a definition of "objective"?  >>>>There's no objective reality.  LSD should be sufficient to prove that. >>>  >>> Speaking as one who has taken LSD, I say:  >>> Bullshit. >  >>Well, I'll have to bow to your superior knowledge on that one, but I think I >>detect a pattern in your responses.  How about some actual support for your >>dismissals? >  > You take LSD, and it skews your perception of reality. You come down, > and your perceptions unskew.  And?  >>> How could striving toward an ideal be in any way useful, if the ideal  >>> had no objective existence? >  >>A perfectly efficient power station would convert all of the energy in coal >>into electricity.  There is absolutely no way we can build a perfect power >>station; it's an ideal.  But striving towards that ideal is undeniably >>useful and valuable, is it not? >  > OK, let me narrow the question. Is it useful to strive toward a > (nonexistent) objective ethics?  I'd guess that it might be.  > In what way?  It may be the case that some people are unable to evaluate complex moral issues.  Rather than leaving them to behave "immorally", it might be better to offer them an abstract (nonexistent objective) system of ethics which they can strive towards, coded into rules which they don't have to derive for themselves.  I tend to feel that this is pretty much what we all have as morality anyway...
>/(hudson) >/And from a materialistic point of view, it could be said that the nervous >/system is just matter.  What is wrong with producing chemical reactions in >/matter?   > >Because this matter is different.  It is alive, and self-aware.  And it >feels pain.    /(hudson) /If all morality were relative- big hairy deal.  As I said, you appear to be the only person saying that all morality is relative.  Most people I know do hold some absolutes in their moral system.  I >>personally<< believe that the dignity of the individual and the right of free will are absolutes.  I recognize that there are some moral systems around which don't accept this; I reject them as dangerous and anti-social (nazism, some forms of communism, fundamentalist xtianity--no, that's not a slam).  But for the most part, almost every moral system agrees on these two points.     (me) >and the sky, and everything in it; everything that was created came out >of God.  Everything, including this matter, is part of God.  Therefore, is  >it wrong to put parts of God in a test tube and make It go through  >reactions?  Isn't that a form of blasphemy?   /(hudson) /Generally, Christians believe in a Creator-Creation distinction.  Other /religions believe in one big whole.   I don't accept yor premises.  Too bad.  I know I'm right, so I get to enforce my view upon you whether you like my premise or not.  And since you can't prove otherwise, there isn't even an intellectual basis for your resistance to accepting my viewpoint.      >/(hudson) >/How long will it be before the "as long as it doesn't hurt someone else"  >/becomes more and more relative until the only rule that is left is  >/"I will do what I want to do, no matter who it hurts." > >There's a big jump between those two positions, and you know it very  >well.  Don't play stupid.  I realize that you're trying to dispute >what you call "popular morality" by using what you think is logic, >but you're stretching this a bit too thin.  /(hudson) /I don't think so.  once morality becomes relative, it degenerates.  I am /saying that reasoning that it is generally evil to hurt other people is bad. /(though I don't think it is sufficient.)     Well, then answer me this:   you seem to be opposed to moral relativism (as you call it) because it has the capacity to degenerate.  Obviously, then, you would advocate a nonrelative (absolute) moral system.  Whose absolutist moral system do we choose?    How do we come to this decision?  What about people who disagree with the chosen moral system?      /(hudson) /But if morality is considered to /be relative, and this rule isn't based on anything, but is just an arbitrary /rule, people might abandon it.  Fine.  I can agree with most of what you typed here.  However, just because morality gets based on something nonrelative does NOT mean that we have to pick your xtianity as its base.
In article <1qsqar$n8m@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea) writes: > >In a previous article, ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe) says: > >> >>ON the subject of how many competing RC orders there are, let me point out the >>Golden Dawn is only the *outer* order of that tradition.  The inner order is >>the Roseae Rubeae et Aurae Crucis.   >> > >	Just wondering, do you mean the "Lectorium Rosicrucianum"? >Warning: There is no point in arguing who's "legit" and who's not. *WHICH* >Golden Dawn are you talking about?   Which Golden Dawn? How about the original from 100 years ago?  >	Just for the sake of argument, (reflecting NO affiliation) >I am going to say that the TRUE Rosicrucian Order is the Fraternitas >Rosae Crucis in Quakertown, Penn., > >	Any takers? :-)   No. No Rosicrucian would ever admit or deny being such.
In article <C5KxDD.K4J@boi.hp.com>, jburrill@boi.hp.com (Jim Burrill) wrote: > If Jesus never taught the concept of the Trinity, how do you deal with the  > following:    >  >    Mat 28 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven >    and on earth has been given to me. >  >    Mat 28 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing >    them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, >  >    Mat 28 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. >    And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."   Jim, please, that's a lame explanation of the trinity that Jesus provides above. Baptizing people in the name of three things != trinity. If this is the case, then I'm wrong, I assumed that trinity implies that God is three entities, and yet the same.  Cheers, Kent
In article <C5sL3z.2B2@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, pmy@vivaldi.acc.virginia.edu (Pete Yadlowsky) writes: |>  |> Anyway, I've often wondered what business followers of Christ would have |> with weapons. |>  |> -- |> Peter M. Yadlowsky              |  Wake! The sky is light! |> Academic Computing Center       | Let us to the Net again... |> University of Virginia          |    Companion keyboard. |> pmy@Virginia.EDU                |                      - after Basho  IMO, a Christian has no need of weapons.  I know it is very contrary to the American NRA ethos of the right to bear arms, but Christians should rely on the strength of God to protect them.  Note that I say *should*.  We are inherently insecure but I feel that that is not proper justification to be armed to the teeth.  A Christian should not have to rely on physical weapons to defend himself.  A Christian should rely on his faith and intelligence. For instance, I have the faith that God will protect me but God also gave me the intelligence to know not to go walking down that dark alley at night. To jump off a cliff and say that God will save me would be putting God to the test.  And who are we to test God?  God be with you,
Paul Hudson Jr (hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu) writes:  >I was not directly going to come up with a moral argument for the  existence >of God.  Rather, I was trying to show the absurdity of atheistic materialist >relatavists trying to embrace some common moral system as though it were >absolute.  Man knows in his heart that there is right and wrong.  We have >all inherited this knowledge.    No matter how "absurd" it is to suggest that a common moral system created by mankind is absolute, it is not contrary to reason to suggest that a common moral system created by mankind is sensible. In fact, for the Bible to be of any use to mankind as a moral code, it must be interpreted by mankind and a workable moral system created for everyday use.  The Jewish Talmud is the result of centuries of Biblical scholars analysing every word of the Torah to understand the morality behind it. The Children of Israel were given a very strict set of Moral, Civil, Judicial and Ceremonial Laws to follow and yet this was clearly not enough to cover every instance of moral dilemma in their Society. For a Christian, the situation is no better.  It seems to me that the only code of morality that we have from the Judeo- Christian God is that which is contained in the Bible (which we can see from the diverse opinions in the Christian newsgroups is not clear). There may well be an absolute morality defined by the Judeo-Christian God for mankind to follow but it seems that we only have a subset simply because the concept was written down by man.  This leads to the problem of defining morality for our society. If we take the divine Morality then we have a code of practice which may be interpreted in many different ways (as an example, consider the immolation of heretics in the fifteenth century and the interpretation of the Bible which allows a man to do that to another man under the precept to administer Justice). If we take an agnostic Morality then we have a code of practice that can be modified to suit society (with all the danger that this implies). Alternatively, we could take the basis of the Judeo-Christian morality and interpret/extend this to create and justify a code of morality which suits the society we live in and enables the people to live Righteously (as many Christian and Non-Christian philosophers have done).  Whatever the driving force behind the definition of morality for our society, I think the important aspect is the result.  David.  --- On religion:
In article <C5t5sF.8oz@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> frittsbc@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Brian Fritts) writes: >  I saw one theist on this net talking about the absurdity of one saying he >doesn't believe in god, and how can we be sure.  The problem with this and >other arguments assumes that the burden of proof lies with the atheist. Wrong! >In philosophy the one who is making a positive argument must give reasons for >his believing so, not the negative.  If I were to make the statement elves  >exist, then it would be up to me to prove my positive assertion, not the  >person saying that elves don't exist.  If the negative in this case had to  >prove elves don't exist he would have to omniscient and know every inch of the >universe.  The same applies with god.  Give me your reasons, and you (the theist) make the case.  I think you have are addressing the wrong issue. The situation is more like: we both see some elves. This is established as fact since we can both touch them etc. Then one of us says, the elves have always been with us. The other says, no no there was a time before elves were here. Which is the positive argument?
In article <9c9e02703ak901@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>  czl30@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Chris Lee) writes: >In article <93074.033230KEVXU@CUNYVM.BITNET> KEVXU@CUNYVM.BITNET writes: >>The Irish have their version of the swastica called St. Brigid's cross. >There's also the three-legged symbol of the Isle of Man.
In article <930416.140529.9M1.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>  mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes: >livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: >>Not, of course, The Greatest Salesman in the World. That was Jesus, wasn't it? >No, J.R. "Bob" Dobbs.  Definitely, J.R. "Bob" Dobbs, numero uno, top dog, not one can touch, not one can knock Bob out of the box. Bob kills me mon! Everyday!  But close El Segundo (el subliminal) is the infamous Paul (birthname Saul) the Evangeline who became famous as a result of his numerous trampoline act  tours of the eastern Mediterranean.
My theory is that Koresh was seriously wounded in the initial gunbattle and died on Day 9 of the siege.  On Day 11 of the siege he rose from the dead and periodically appeared to his followers and the FBI over the next 40 days.  Living with someone who's risen from the dead isn't easy, as Timmy Baterman's father in *Pet*Sematary* could attest, so after 40 days they did what Baterman did--shot themselves and burned the place to the ground.  Consistent with the facts, isn't it?  Did anyone actually *see* Koresh between Day 9 and Day 11?
In article <1993Apr23.210109.21120@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes: >> Kent, I am not accusing you of evil things.  Jesus is accusing you. >> And it is not only you that He is accusing.  He is accusing everyone. >> Me, you and everyone in the world is guilty.  Whether one >> sees the light or does not seen the light has nothing to do with  >> whether we do evil things.  We do them regardless.   >Have you ever made a mistake?  Have you ever lied to someone?  Even a >little white lie?   Have you ever claimed to know something that you really  >didn't know?  Have you ever hated someone?  Have you ever been selfish? >Are you guilty of any one of these?   The answer is of course, YES.  You >are guilty.  Period.  That is it what Jesus is getting at.  No big surprise.   >Feelings do not even enter the picture.   Consider Jesus's use of the word >"guilt" as how a court uses it.  You said everyone in the world.  That means *everyone* in the world, including children that are not old enough to speak, let alone tell lies.  If Jesus says "everyone", you cannot support that by referring to a group of people somewhat smaller than "everyone". -- "On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey! On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole     that she made from Leftover Turkey. [days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...    -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)
In article <30151@ursa.bear.com>, halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) writes: >In article <C5snCL.J8o@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes: > >>Evolution, as I have said before, is theory _and_ fact.  It is exactly >>the same amount of each as the existence of atoms and the existence of >>gravity.  If you accept the existence of atoms and gravity as fact, >>then you should also accept the existence of evolution as fact. >> >>--  >>--Andy > >I don't accept atoms or gravity as fact either.  They are extremely useful >mathematical models to describe physical observations we can make. >Other posters have aptly explained the atomic model.  Gravity, too, is >very much a theory; no gravity waves have even been detected, but we >have a very useful model that describes much of the behavior on >objects by this thing we _call_ gravity.  Gravity, however, is _not_  >a fact.  It is a theoretical model used to talk about how objects  >behave in our physical environment.  Newton thought gravity was a >simple vector force; Einstein a wave. Both are very useful models that  >have no religious overtones or requirements of faith, unless of course you  >want to demand that it is a factual physical entity described exactly  >the way the theory now formulated talks about it.  That takes a great  >leap of faith, which, of course, is what religion takes.  Evolution >is no different. > >--  > jim halat         halat@bear.com       Are you serious?!!!  Here's an exercise next time you are in the barnyard.  Take *your* model and hold it directly above a fresh cowpie.  Then release the model.  You will observe that on its own *your* model will assume a trajectory earthward and come to rest exactly where it belongs.  Watch out for splatters, particularly if you are wearing shorts when you perform this experiment.
refrettably you are mistaken.  alt.drugs was used to recruit people for the worldwide pot religion.  I, however hve no problem being in both of them
You just don't get it, do you?  brian@lpl.arizona.edu (Brian Ceccarelli 602/621-9615) writes: > >Me:  "Brian K, please step aside before you get run over."  >BK:  "There is no truck." >Me:  "Turn around at look." >BK:  "No." >Me:  "Look!  You will be healthier if you do take a look at >     the oncoming truck." >BK:  "No. Explain to me why trucks exist." >Me:  "Turn around or you will run over." >BK:  "No. I won't because I like hiking and tomorrow is Tuesday." >Me:  "You blind fool!  Why do you choose ignorance? You have nothing >      to lose if you look.  But if do not look, you will certainly lose your life." >      I do not want to see you squashed all over the road. >BK:  "It is my life to lose.  I rather not look. >      Besides, a truck running over me will not harm me." >      And by the way, I really have an open mind."  I think the discussion is more like this...  Me: [ happily picking daisies by the side of the road ] BC: [ dancing on the double yellow broken line ]     "Come on out and play on the highway!" Me: "Why?" BC: "The highway was put here for people to be on.  We must work towards      fulfilling its purpose." Me: "But --" BC: "Look, the highway has been here for several generations.  Look, I      have a story about how it was actually created by a divine being!      And several people actually saw Elvis bless it!" Me: "But --" BC: "Look, are you going to come out here, or not?" Me: "But --" BC: "You probably think that picking daisies is fun.  Well, you're wrong." Me: "Where in blazes did you get this silly idea that you're supposed to      be playing on the highway?  You'll get yourself killed!" BC: "Better to be killed on the highway than to live an empty life off      of it.  Besides, you're just asking pointless questions.  You know      you really want to be playing on the highway too; you're just      denying it." Me: "If you want to get run over, then fine, but I'd much rather enjoy      the daisies, if you please." BC: "Why do you shun me like this?  The Creator of the Highway will flatten      you with a steamroller if you don't see the light and come join me!" Me: "Well, if he's gonna be THAT way about it, maybe I want to get as      far from the highway as I can..." BC: [ incoherent but quite familiar righteous sputtering ]  Brian C., don't you see?  I do not believe that your god is:  	(a) real, or even  	(b) beneficial.  In fact, I believe your religion is imaginary and, carried to extremes, harmful.  I would like to help you see its shortcomings, and perhaps someday finally become strong enough to see it for what it is: an elaborate lie, kept alive by the elite priesthood to keep the masses properly submissive to their influences.  Please offer me an argument that's more convincing than "you just don't believe 'cos you don't want to."  Everything you've said so far could apply equally to any religion -- why do you believe yours is the real one?  (Note that saying "it's the only one that promises eternal life" or something like that isn't an answer to my question, unless you show that (a) no other religion promises eternal life and (b) it is unarguably true that eternal life must be a reality.)
sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes: > >I've done all those things, and I've regretted it, and I learned  >a lesson or two. So far an aspirin, a good talk with your wife, >or a one week vacation has cured me -- no need for group therapy >or strange religions!  Um, Kent... just what *have* you been doing with his wife?!?  ;-D
alamut@netcom.com (Max Delysid (y!)) writes:  > In article <1qppef$i5b@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony > > > >     Name just three *really* competing Rosicrucian Orders. I have > >probably spent more time than you doing the same.  > > > >     None of them are spin-offs from O.T.O. The opposite may be the > >case.  >  > Can we assume from this statement that you are >unequivocally< saying that > AMORC is not a spin off of OTO? .. and that in fact, OTO may well be a spin > off of AMORC?? > i would be quite interested in hearing what evidence you have to support this > claim.  >  >   Well, there is a fair amount of evidence floating around that indicates that OTO has been around since at least the late 1800s, long before Crowley ever heard of it, how long has AMORC been around? (yes, I know that they claim to have existed as an organization clear into prehistory, but I doubt that they have any organizational paperwork as a non-profit that can be carbon-dated to 20,000 BC)                                              A.Lizard
Jim and Andy both have it incorrect I believe:  The *facts* are what is there, the processes that exist in the present or the physical evidence of the processes having occured in the past. These *facts* exist with or without a theory.  The *theory* tries and explains the *facts* and how they relate to the rest of the physical universe in a manner that is both coherent and useful, that it can be used to make predictions.  The *facts* of gravity, evolution, electromagnetic radiation, relativity, atoms will exist and behave in the way in which they behave regardless of whether we have a theory to try and explain how they interact... or even why.  A theory never really becomes a fact... but a theory can predict the existence of a previously unknown fact, and if we find this fact as the theory predicted we say the *theory* is *supported* by the *facts*. A theory is a mental construct, a speculation,  a model.  If it is a good model, it may be useful.  In science a theory is something that is supported by the  evidence, considerable evidence, sometimes *all* of the evidence. A *hypothesis* is a new fledgling theory because there is not yet enough evidence to support it.  When a new hypothesis  is proposed to replace an existing theory, it must explain *all* of the facts that the current theory explains and at least some of the facts that the current theory could not and/or predict new facts.  It is so simple.... I'm surprised that this subject gets beat to death about once a month. A quick glance in a dictionary would clear up 99% of the confusion and bandwidth in this newsgroup.  Then we could talk about really important things like, why do men have nipples?  -David Utidjian- utidjian@remarque.berkeley.edu
.         It should be remembered that all of the first reports came from         the FBI, and that independent observers, i.e. the press, were not         allowed to get close and see things for themselves.  Official         communiques tend to be self-serving for the agencies that issue         them.          People in general tend to believe first reports, as these get         the most and the biggest headlines.  Corrections are often         overlooked.           An example is the FBI report that several of the bodies found         in the rubble had bullet wounds.  The local coroner, who is         independent of the FBI, has so far found no bullet wounds!