waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <1993Apr20.103345.2651@nuscc.nus.sg> cmtan@iss.nus.sg (Tan Chade Meng - dan) writes: >From: cmtan@iss.nus.sg (Tan Chade Meng - dan) >Subject: Re: You will all go to hell. >Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1993 10:33:45 GMT >In article <93106.155002JSN104@psuvm.psu.edu> <JSN104@psuvm.psu.edu>   >writes: >> YOU BLASHEPHEMERS!!! YOU WILL ALL GO TO HELL FOR NOT BELIEVING IN  >> GOD!!!!  BE PREPARED FOR YOUR ETERNAL DAMNATION!!! > >Arrgg!!  *Another* one of those?! >Another letter to the Big Guy: > >Dear God, > >Please take them back to Heaven & leave us rational, intelligent >people alone. > >Love, >Meng > > >-- > >The UnEnlightened One >------------------+-------------------------------------------------------- >                  |  >Tan Chade Meng    | There is light at the end of the tunnel ......  >Singapore         |  >cmtan@iss.nus.sg  | It's an on-coming train.  >                  |  >------------------+-------------------------------------------------------- > > Meng,  I have a better prayer:  Dear God,       Please save the world from the likes of these!!!
In article <16BAFA9D9.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes: >  >  >Yes, but, fortunately, religions have been replaced by systems >that value Human Rights higher.  Secular laws seem to value criminal life more than the victims life, Islam places the rights of society and every member in it above  the rights of the individual, this is what I call true human rights.  >  >By the way, do you actually support the claim of precedence of Islamic >Law? In case you do, what about the laws of other religions?  As a Muslim living in a non-Muslim land I am bound by the laws of the land I live in, but I do not disregard Islamic Law it still remains a part of my  life. If the laws of a land conflict with my religion to such an extent that I am prevented from being allowed to practise my religion then I must  leave the land. So in a way Islamic law does take precendence over secular law but we are instructed to follow the laws of the land that we live in too.  In an Islamic state (one ruled by a Khaliphate) religions other than Islam are allowed to rule by their own religious laws provided they don't affect the genral population and don't come into direct conflict with state  laws, Dhimmis (non-Muslim population) are exempt from most Islamic laws on religion, such as fighting in a Jihad, giving Zakat (alms giving) etc but are given the benefit of these two acts such as Military protection and if they are poor they will receive Zakat.  >  >If not, what has it got to do with Rushdie? And has anyone reliable >information if he hadn't left Islam according to Islamic law? >Or is the burden of proof on him? >   Benedikt  After the Fatwa didn't Rushdie re-affirm his faith in Islam, didn't he go thru' a very public "conversion" to Islam? If so he is binding himself to Islamic Laws. He has to publicly renounce in his belief in Islam so the burden is on him.  Mas
In article <115565@bu.edu>, jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes: |> In article <1qi3l5$jkj@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: |>  |> >I hope an Islamic Bank is something other than BCCI, which |> >ripped off so many small depositors among the Muslim |> >community in the Uk and elsewhere. |>  |> >jon. |>  |> Grow up, childish propagandist.  Gregg, I'm really sorry if having it pointed out that in practice things aren't quite the wonderful utopia you folks seem to claim them to be upsets you, but exactly who is being childish here is  open to question.  BBCI was an example of an Islamically owned and operated bank - what will someone bet me they weren't "real" Islamic owners and operators? - and yet it actually turned out to be a long-running and quite ruthless operation to steal money from small and often quite naive depositors.  And why did these naive depositors put their life savings into BCCI rather than the nasty interest-motivated western bank down the street?   Could it be that they believed an Islamically owned  and operated bank couldn't possibly cheat them?   So please don't try to con us into thinking that it will all  work out right next time.
In article <1993Apr15.125245.12872@abo.fi> MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka) writes: |In <1qie61$fkt@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp writes: |> In article <30114@ursa.bear.com> halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) writes: | |> #I'm one of those people who does not know what the word objective means  |> #when put next to the word morality.  I assume its an idiom and cannot |> #be defined by its separate terms. |> # |> #Give it a try. |>  |> Objective morality is morality built from objective values. | |      "And these objective values are ... ?" |Please be specific, and more importantly, motivate.  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.  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.  I take this to be a candidate for an objective value, and it it is a necessary condition for objective morality that objective values such as this exist.
In article <8473@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk> martin@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk (Martin Gorman) writes: >JSN104@psuvm.psu.edu writes: > >>YOU BLASHEPHEMERS!!! YOU WILL ALL GO TO HELL FOR NOT BELIEVING IN GOD!!!!  BE >>PREPARED FOR YOUR ETERNAL DAMNATION!!! >> >Oh fuck off.  Actually, I just think he's confused.  *I'm* going to hell because I'm Gay, not becuase I don't believe in God.  (I wonder if that means I can't come to Tammy & Deans picnic?)
I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes:  > In article <ii1i2B1w165w@mantis.co.uk> > Tony Lezard <tony@mantis.co.uk> writes: >   > (Deletion) > > > >My opinion is that the strong atheist position requires too much > >belief for me to be comfortable with. Any strong atheists out there > >care to comment?  >[...] > Humans just come up with the idea of a spiritual parent. It is one > of the artifacts of human thought. The evidence for that is quite > overwhelming. And the information content of the conceived is vanishing. >   > In other words, if there were gods, they would hardly make sense, and > it is possible to explain the phenomenon of religion without gods. >   > The concept is useless, and I don't have to introduce new assumptions > in order to show that. >   > No leap of faith required for me. Your mileage may vary.  Yes I fully agree with that, but is it "I don't believe gods exist", or "I believe no gods exist"? As MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka) pointed out, it all hinges on what you take the word "believe" to mean.  Unfortunately this is bound up in the definitions of strong and weak atheism, at least according to the FAQ:  # Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of God. # Some atheists go further, and believe that God does not exist.  The former is # often referred to as the "weak atheist" position, and the latter as "strong # atheism". #  # It is important to note the difference between these two positions.  "Weak # atheism" is simple scepticism; disbelief in the existence of God.  "Strong # atheism" is a positive belief that God does not exist.  Please do not # fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are "strong atheists".  (From mathew's "An Introduction to Atheism" version 1.2 last modified 5-Apr-93)  Should the FAQ be clarified to try to pin down this notion of "belief"? Can it?
In article <timmbake.735294667@mcl> timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu (Bake Timmons) writes: >mccullou@whipple.cs.wisc.edu writes: > >>The line about atheists haveing something up their sleeves is what seemed >>to imply that.  Sorry, been reading too much on the CLIPPER project lately, >>and the paranoia over there may have seeped in some. > >;)  What is the CLIPPER project BTW?  The CLIPPER initiative is an announcement by Clinton that all the  "secure" voice phones will use the same crypto chip, as a de-facto government standard.  Problem is, the government is admitting that they hold the keys to break the code easily, and the Justice department will be using the keys to listen in on "illegal activities."  Many people are really scared about such an initiative because it is a major step towards outlawing real crypto protection on things like email if you read the press release.  The project was developed by NSA and given to NIST.  It uses two keys S1 and S2 that the government claims are needed to break the code.  They claim that these keys will be handed to two different companies, and when they get a warrant to do a wiretap (the chip is nicknamed the wiretap chip), they have to get the keys from both companies.  People have poked holes through and through the press release official version and shown how it is nowhere near as nice as it sounds, and I have given the simplified version.  People over on sci.crypt are really scared about this proposal it seems.
In article <16BB9DBA8.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de>, I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes: |> In article <1r79j3$ak2@fido.asd.sgi.com> |> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: |>   |> (Deletion) |> >So, Mr Conner.   Is Bobby Mozumder a myth, a performing artist, |> >a real Moslem. a crackpot, a provocateur?    You know everything |> >and read all minds: why don't you tell us? |> > |>   |> As a side note: isn't it telling that one cannot say for sure if |> Bobby Mozunder is a firm believer or a provocateur? What does |> that say about religious beliefs?  I think that's an insightful comment.   Especially when at the same time we have people like Bill "Projector" Conner complaining that we are posting parodies.
In article <16BAFC876.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes: >From: I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) >Subject: Re: ISLAM: a clearer view >Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1993 13:15:18 GMT >In article <healta.60.734567658@saturn.wwc.edu> >healta@saturn.wwc.edu (TAMMY R HEALY) writes: >  >>>Sorry, it is generally accepted that the rise of the inquisition is >>>the reason why torture was introduced outside the Romanic countries >>>at the end of the Middle Ages. In other words, the Holy Mother Church >>>which is lead infallibly by the Holy Ghost has spread it. >> >>The Roman Catholic Church claims to be lead by the "infallable" pope. >>That's why she (the RC Church) has done so many wicked things to Xtians and >>non-believers alike. >  >  >The rationale that the pope speaking ex cathedra is infallible is based >on the claim above. The dogma about the pope is of Jesuitic origin and >has not been been accepted before the mid of the last century. >   Benedikt  You're right.  Thanks for enlightening me.
In article <C5v2Mr.1z1@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>, bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes: [deleted stuff from Andrew wrt which atheist myth is Bill re: to] >  > Andrew, >  > The myth to which I refer is the convoluted counterfeit athiests have > created to make religion appear absurd.   "Counterfeit atheists". Hmmmm. So, we're just cheap knock-offs of the True Atheists.   Religion demonstrates itself to be absurd. Constantly. Personally, if  someone asks, I'm happy to point out how this is so.   > Rather than approach religion > (including Christainity) in a rational manner and debating its claims > -as the are stated-, atheists concoct outrageous parodies and then > hold the religious accountable for beliefs they don't have. What is > more accurately oxymoric is the a term like, reasonable atheist.  Man, what *is* your pill wrt atheists? If you're going to make such contentious statements, back them up! At least, READ NEWS: time-and-time again, we've hashed out the beliefs various religous doctrines hold.  Try debating reasonably with someone who makes a statement like,  "...more accurately oxymoric is the a term like, reasonable atheist." Then take a look at the responses we've given Tammy. Seem pretty "reasonable", nay, even "polite" to me.   [accusations of myths a-flyin'] >   > Here's a good example of of what I said above. Read the post again, I > said, "Acoording to ...", which means I am referring to Christian > doctrine (as I understand it), if I am speaking for myself you'll know > it. My purpose in posting was to present a basic overview of Christain > doctrines since it seemed germane.  I saw your reference to "According to" in the original article. Then you do such an excellent job of spewing dogma that, well, the implication was pretty clear (if wrong, in this case).  [jeez, a misunderstanding. Let it go.]  [more statements to wrap this thing up] >  > 3) If you read my post with same care as read the FAQ, we wouldn't be > having this conversation.  If you had WRITTEN your post with the same as care as the FAQ has been, we wouldn't be having this discussion.  [gems about evidence deleted]  >  > Yes, human reason does always come back to the existence of God, we're > having this discussion are we not?  Jeez, do I have to point this out to you? This discussion is not all instances of human reason. Therefore, your implication is false.   >  > Well this is interesting, Truth is to be determined by it politically > correct content. Granted it's extremely unhip to be a WASP male, and > anything European is contemptable, but I thought this kind of > dialogue, the purpose of a.a, was to get at the truth of things. But > then I remember the oxymoron, reasonalble atheist, and I understand.  How lame can you get. Who said anything about the 'truth' of things? Read the FAQ very carefully, please. Then report your findings about where it says the purpose of a.a is to find the 'truth' of things.  And stop impressing your own misguided image of atheists upon us. It's really pissing me off.
mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:  >>>As for rape, surely there the burden of guilt is solely on the rapist? >>Unless you force someone to live with the rapist against his will, in which >>case part of the responsibility is yours. >I'm sorry, but I can't accept that.  Unless the rapist was hypnotized or >something, I view him as solely responsible for his actions.  Not necessarily, especially if the rapist is known as such.  For instance, if you intentionally stick your finger into a loaded mousetrap and get snapped, whose fault is it?
>DATE:   15 Apr 93 19:20:37 EDT >FROM:   kmagnacca@eagle.wesleyan.edu > >In article <bskendigC5JCwx.Jzn@netcom.com>, bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes: >> >> [s.c.a quotes deleted] >>  >> It really looks like these people have no idea at all of what it means >> to be atheist.  There are more Bobby Mozumder clones in the world than >> I thought... > >Well, that explains some things; I posted on soc.religion.islam >with an attached quote by Bobby to the effect that all atheists >are lying evil scum, and asked if it was a commonly-held idea >among muslims.  I got no response.  Asking about the unknown, >I guess...
In article <735424748.AA00437@therose.pdx.com> Alan.Olsen@p17.f40.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Alan Olsen) writes: >From: Alan.Olsen@p17.f40.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Alan Olsen) >Subject: some thoughts. >Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1993 03:25:06 -0800 > >rh> From: house@helios.usq.EDU.AU (ron house) >rh> Newsgroups: alt.atheism >rh> Organization: University of Southern Queensland > >rh> bissda@saturn.wwc.edu (DAN LAWRENCE BISSELL) writes: > >>	First I want to start right out and say that I'm a Christian.  It  > >rh> I _know_ I shouldn't get involved, but...   :-) > >rh> [bit deleted] > >>	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. >[rest of rant deleted] > >This is a standard argument for fundies.  Can you spot the falicy? The >statement is arguing from the assumption that Jesus actually existed.  So far, >they have not been able to offer real proof of that  existance.     *************************************************************************** 	I just thought it necessary to help defend the point that Jesus  existed.  Guys: Jesus existed.  If he didnt, then you have to say that  Socrates didnt exist cuz he, like Jesus, has nothing from his hands that  have survived.  Only Plato and others record his existance.  Many others  record Jesus' existance, including the Babylonian Talmud.  Sorry guys, the  argument that Jesus may not have existed is a dead point now.  He did.   Whether he was God or whether there is a God is a completely different  story, however.  *****************************************************************************
> What about the Twelve Imams, who he considered incapable of error > or sin? Khomeini supports this view of the Twelve Imans. This is > heresy for the very reasons I gave above.   I would be happy to discuss the  issue of the 12 Imams with you, although my preference would be to move the discussion to another newsgroup.  I feel a philosophy or religion group would be more appropriate. The topic is deeply embedded in the world view of Islam and the esoteric teachings of the Prophet (S.A.). Heresy does not enter into it at all except for those who see Islam only as an exoteric religion that is only nominally (if at all) concerned with the metaphysical substance of man's being and nature.  A good introductory book (in fact one of the best introductory books to Islam in general) is Murtaza Mutahhari's "Fundamental's of Islamic Thought - God, Man, and the Universe" - Mizan Press, translated by R. Campbell. Truly a beautiful book. A follow-up book (if you can find a decent translation) is "Wilaya - The Station of the Master" by the same author. I think it also goes under the title of "Master and Mastership" - It's a very small book - really just a transcription of a lecture by the author. The introduction to the beautiful "Psalms of Islam" - translated by William C. Chittick (available through Muhammadi Trust of Great Britain) is also an excellent introduction to the subject. We have these books in our University library - I imagine any well stocked University library will have them.  From your posts, you seem fairly well versed in Sunni thought. You should seek to know Shi'ite thought through knowledgeable  Shi'ite authors as well - at least that much respect is due before the charge of heresy is levelled.
YOU BLASHEPHEMERS!!! YOU WILL ALL GO TO HELL FOR NOT BELIEVING IN GOD!!!!  BE PREPARED FOR YOUR ETERNAL DAMNATION!!!
>>>>> On Fri, 16 Apr 1993 15:50:02 EDT, <JSN104@psuvm.psu.edu> said:  J> YOU BLASHEPHEMERS!!! YOU WILL ALL GO TO HELL FOR NOT BELIEVING IN GOD!!!!  BE J> PREPARED FOR YOUR ETERNAL DAMNATION!!!  Hmm, I've got my MST3K lunch box, my travel scrabble, and a couple of kegs of Bass Ale.  I'm all set!  Let's go everybody!
Could you explain what any of this pertains to? Is this a position statement on something or typing practice? And why are you using my name, do you think this relates to anything I've said and if so, what.
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:  >>This whole thread started because of a discussion about whether >>or not the death penalty constituted cruel punishment, which is forbidden >>by the US Constitution. >Yes, but they didn't say what they meant by "cruel", which is why >a) you have the Supreme Court, and b) it makes no sense to refer >to the Constitution, which is quite silent on the meaning of the >word "cruel".  They spent quite a bit of time on the wording of the Constitution.  They picked words whose meanings implied the intent.  We have already looked in the dictionary to define the word.  Isn't this sufficient?  >>Oh, but we were discussing the death penalty (and that discussion >>resulted from the one about murder which resulted from an intial >>discussion about objective morality--so this is already three times >>removed from the morality discussion). >Actually, we were discussing the mening of the word "cruel" and >the US Constitution says nothing about that.  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).
In article <93103.071613J5J@psuvm.psu.edu> John A. Johnson <J5J@psuvm.psu.edu> writes: > >Standard groups (sci, soc, talk) must conform to stricter rules when being >established and must show a certain volume of postings or else they will >cease to exist.  These groups also reach more sites on USENET than alt >groups.  I already posted my opinion to mathew's suggestion, which was that >alt.atheism is on the verge of having too many garbage postings from >fundies, and "elevating" its status to a standard group (and consequently, >the volume of such postings) could make it unreadable.  I tend to agree.  I came here when it first started and watched it grow from the roots on talk.religion.misc.  It seemed to take a while for enough atheists to come forward to get past the "Let's trash Xians" and such. Now there's a stable core, and frankly there's a feeling that this is _our_ group.  If we go mainstream, we're going to be in a lot more places.  And every fucking fundy loonie freshman will be dumping on us to find Jeesus! and warn us that we're all going to Hell.  Want to see what we'll get?  Go real alt.fan.brother-jed and imagine that those imbecilic tirades will be here.  All the time.  Every other post.  I'm being selfish.  I find I really learn a lot here and the S/N isn't too bad.  The Browns and the Boobys are a distraction, but they are few enough that they even bring in some of the leavening needed to offset them.  But I greatly fear that mainstreaming would basically put us at the swamping level of the Conners of the world.  Regards, Dew
In article <C5rGKB.4Fs@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu> bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes: >Kent Sandvik (sandvik@newton.apple.com) wrote: >: The social pressure is indeed a very important factor for the majority >: of passive Christians in our world today. In the case of early Christianity >: the promise of a heavenly afterlife, independent of your social status, >: was also a very promising gift (reason slaves and non-Romans accepted >: the religion very rapidly). > >If this is a hypothetical proposition, you should say so, if it's >fact, you should cite your sources. If all this is the amateur >sociologist sub-branch of a.a however, it would suffice to alert the >unwary that you are just screwing around ...  What would you accept as sources?  This very thing has been written in lots of books.  You could start with Erich Fromm's _The Dogma of Christ_.
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. >  [...stuff deleted...]  As many posters have said in as many posts lately, this is just not true.  For to show no interest in the existence of god takes no faith at all.  You make the presumption that the _knowledge_ of the  _possibility_ of something is enough to require faith to render  that possibilty of no interest.  It is a very different thing to say that you don't believe something than it is to say that you don't have sufficent reason to believe something is even interesting to  think about.  It's not either or.  Sometimes is just something else more interesting that occupies your mind.    I agree that faith and dogma are inevitable, but not necessarily applied to god and religion.  It takes both faith and dogma to expect the sun to come up every morning, but there is overwhelming reason every single day, day in and day out, for _everyone_ to put  his faith and dogma there.  Not so with the christian religion.