waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
mam@mouse.cmhnet.org (Mike McAngus) writes:  >Let me see if I understand what you are saying.  In order to talk  >knowledgeably about religion, Atheists must first have been so immersed  >in a religion that only the rare individual could have left.    No, you don't understand.  I said that I don't think people can discuss the subjective merits of religion objectively.  This should be obvious. People here have said that everyone would be better off without religion, but this almost certainly isn't true.  >>But really, are you threatened by the motto, or by the people that use it? >The motto is a tool.  Let's try to take away the tool.  But, guns and axes are tools, both of which have been used for murder. Should both be taken away?  That is to say, I don't think motto misuse warrants its removal.  At least not in this case.
In article 28833@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au,  darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes: #In <1993Apr14.143121.26376@bmw.mayo.edu> vdp@mayo.edu (Vinayak Dutt) writes: #>So instead of calling it interest on deposits, you call it *returns on investements* #>and instead of calling loans you call it *investing in business* (that is in other words #>floating stocks in your company).  # #No, interest is different from a return on an investment.  For one #thing, a return on an investment has greater risk, and not a set return #(i.e. the amount of money you make can go up or down, or you might even #lose money).  The difference is, the risk of loss is shared by the #investor, rather than practically all the risk being taken by the #borrower when the borrower borrows from the bank. #  But is it different from stocks ?  If you wish to call an investor in stocks as a banker, well then its your choice .....  #>Relabeling does not make it interest free !! # #It is not just relabeling, as I have explained above.  It  *is* relabeling ... Also its still not interest free. The investor is still taking some money ... as dividend on his investment ... ofcourse the investor (in islamic *banking*, its your so called *bank*)  is taking more risk than the usual bank, but its still getting some thing back in return ....   Also have you heard of junk bonds ???   ---Vinayak -------------------------------------------------------                                            vinayak dutt                                    e-mail: vdp@mayo.edu               standard disclaimers apply
In article <C5LH4p.27K@portal.hq.videocart.com>, dfuller@portal.hq.videocart.com (Dave Fuller) 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!!! >  >   What do you mean "be prepared" ?? Surrounded by thumpers like yourself > has proven to be hellish enough . . . and I'm not even dead yet !!  Well here's how I prepared.  I got one of those big beach umbrellas, some of those gel-pack ice things, a big Coleman cooler which I've loaded up with Miller Draft (so I like Miller Draft, so sue me), a new pair of New Balance sneakers, a Sony Watchman, and a couple of cartons of BonTon Cheddar Cheese Popcorn.  I haven't decided what to wear yet.  What does one wear to an eternal damnation?
In article <1993Apr3.212139.14076@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes: >In article <1pj9bs$d4j@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: >>I would say that one innocent person killed is in some sense >>as bad as many.   We certainly feel that way when we punish >>someone for a single murder. >>Now if we reform system X, by reducing the number of deaths >>by one, we produce system XX.    I'd say we should not go back >>to system X, even though by doing so we would re-introduce only  >>a single extra death. > >Bob seems to think that one is as bad as many in a sense somewhat stronger than >the one you indicate. >--    Yes, I do.      My argument is that the sole purpose of the death penalty is to   kill people.  That is it's primary (and I would argue only)   purpose.  To continue to kill people by a practice that has   almost no utility, especially when you know you will be killing   innocents, is unconscionable.    At the very least, the existence of the prison system and our   transportation system are based on their merits to society, not   their detriments.  We are willing to accept a few lost innocent   lives because there is an overwhelming benefit to the continued   existence of these systems.  One has to stretch the evidence and   the arguments to make the same claim for capital punishment.    Just in case I wasn't clear again:  We maintain a capital   punsihment system that kills innocent people and provides us with   no net positive gain.  Why?    Were you to pin me in a corner and ask, I would have to respond   that I don't belief the state should have the right to take life   at all.  But I won't open that debate, as it seems others are   tiring of this thread on a.a anyway.   /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\   Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM   They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away, and sank Manhattan out at sea.
In article <C62B52.LKz@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes: > In article <w_briggs-250493134303@ccresources6h58.cc.utas.edu.au> w_briggs@postoffice.utas.edu.au (William Briggs) writes: > >Wasn't JC a carpenter?  Anyway that's beside the point. I think the fact > >that is more compelling is JC fulfilling the prophecies when the prophecies > >include him getting killed in the most agonizing possible way. >  > This is nonsense. >  > I can think of a lot more agonizing ways to get killed.  Fatal cancer, for > instance. >  > Anyone else have some more?  Maybe we can make a list.  Actually, I find the stuff about JC being a carpenter more interesting.  Is there an independent source for this assertion, or is it all from the Christian Bible?  Is there any record at all of anything he built?  A table, a house, some stairs (Norm Abrams says the real test of a carpenter's skill is building stairs with hand tools).  Did he leave any plans behind for, say kitchen counters and cabinets?  Did he build his own cross? If so, did he use pressure-treated lumber?  Gotta use that pressure-treated anywhere that wood meets concrete, but it holds up better anyway for mose outdoor applications.  I keep seeing these bumper-stickers that say "My boss is a Jewish Carpenter," but they're always on the back of Ford Escorts, and a real carpenter's apprentice would probably drive a pickup, so I'm out for verification that he really was a carpenter.  Dean Kaflowitz
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:  >>Well, chimps must have some system.  They live in social groups >>as we do, so they must have some "laws" dictating undesired behavior. >So, why "must" they have such laws?  The quotation marks should enclose "laws," not "must."  If there were no such rules, even instinctive ones or unwritten ones, etc., then surely some sort of random chance would lead a chimp society into chaos.
In article <1993Apr22.195256.6376@cnsvax.uwec.edu> mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes: >               Free Energy Inventions are devices which can tap a  >          seemingly UNLIMITED supply of energy from the universe, with- >          OUT burning any kind of fuel, making them the PERFECT  >          SOLUTION to the world-wide energy crisis and its associated  >          pollution, degradation, and depletion of the environment.   	Give me a call when you build a working model.   	Then we'll talk stock options. ---  Private note to Jennifer Fakult.          "This post may contain one or more of the following:          sarcasm, cycnicism, irony, or humor. Please be aware           of this possibility and do not allow yourself to be           confused and/or thrown for a loop. If in doubt, assume          all of the above.
sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:  > This is the story of Kent, the archetype Finn, that lives in the  > Bay Area, and tried to purchase Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason". This > man was driving around, to Staceys, to Books Inc, to "Well, Cleanlighted > Place", to Daltons, to various other places. >  > When he asked for this book, the well educated American book store > assistants in most placed asked him to check out the thriller section, > or then they said that his book has not been published yet, but they > should receive the book soon. In some places the assistants bluntly > said that they don't know of such an author, or that he is not  > a well known living author, so they don't keep copies of his books. >  > Such is the life and times of America, 200+ years after the revolution.  On a similar note, a good friend of mine worked as a clerk in a chain bookstore.  Several of his peers were amazing, one woman in particular:  A customer asked her if they had _The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin_.  "Who's it by?" was her first question.  Then, "Is he still alive?"  Then, "Is it fiction or non-fiction?"   Finally my friend intervened, and showed the guy where it was.   It makes one wonder what the standards of employment are.
In article <C61H4H.8D4@dcs.ed.ac.uk> pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley) writes: >Quoting schnitzi@eustis.cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius) in article <schnitzi.735603785@eustis>: >>I'm sure all the religious types would get in a snit due >>to Asimov's atheism.  >Can someone confirm this?  Someone told me that Asimov converted to >Christianity at some point, or something.  Does anyone have any good >quotes?  What?  Absolutely not.  No way.  Asimov was a lifelong atheist, and said so many times, right until his death.  Judging from the many stories he told about his own life, he felt culturally closest to Judaism, which makes sense. He was born Jewish.
In article <1r4bfe$7hg@aurora.engr.LaTech.edu>, ray@engr.LaTech.edu (Bill Ray) wrote: >  > James Thomas Green (jgreen@trumpet.calpoly.edu) wrote: >  > :   > : So in conclusion it can be shown that there is essentially no > : logical argument which clearly differentiates a "cult" from a > : "religion".  I challenge anyone to produce a distinction which > : is clear and can't be easily knocked down.   >  > How about this one: a religion is a cult which has stood the test > of time.  Or a religion is a cult that got co-opted by people who are better at compartmentalizing their irrationality.  Peter
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.
In <11825@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:  >In article <C5Jxru.2t8@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike  Cobb) writes: >>What do you base your belief on atheism on?  Your knowledge and reasoning?  >>COuldn't that be wrong? >>  >  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?   Also, if I may, what the heck where we talking about and why didn't I keep  some comments on there to see what the line of thoughts were?  MAC     >/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\   >Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM   >They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away, >and sank Manhattan out at sea.  >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ -- ****************************************************************                                                     Michael A. Cobb  "...and I won't raise taxes on the middle     University of Illinois     class to pay for my programs."                 Champaign-Urbana           -Bill Clinton 3rd Debate             cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu
In article <timmbake.735175045@mcl> timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu (Bake Timmons) writes: >From: timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu (Bake Timmons) >Subject: Amusing atheists and agnostics >Date: 18 Apr 93 23:17:25 GMT  [some big deletions] > >Many atheists show a poor understanding of human nature, so many        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                 >people who would otherwise sympathize with their cause only shake their  >heads in disbelief at such childish ranting.  Another in a string of idiotic generalizations.  Gad, I'm surprised I got  this far down in the post.  I guess some just like seeing their names up on  a CRT.    Like me :-)    Phil Trodwell
Shamim Zvonko Mohamed (sham@cs.arizona.edu) wrote: : BULLSHIT!!! In the Gulf Massacre, 7% of all ordnance used was "smart." The : rest - that's 93% - was just regular, dumb ol' iron bombs and stuff. Have : you forgotten that the Pentagon definition of a successful Patriot launch : was when the missile cleared the launching tube with no damage? Or that a : successful interception of a Scud was defined as "the Patriot and Scud : passed each other in the same area of the sky"? :  : And of the 7% that was the "smart" stuff, 35% hit. Again - try to follow me : here - that means 65% of this "smart" arsenal missed.
snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes: > More horrible deaths resulted from atheism than anything else.  There are definitely quite a few horrible deaths as the result of both atheists AND theists.  I'm sure Bobby can list quite a few for the atheist side but fails to recognize that the theists are equally proficient at genocide.  Perhaps, since I'm a bit weak on history, somone here would like to give a list of wars caused/led by theists?  I can think of a few (Hitler claimed to be a Christian for example) but a more complete list would probably be more effective in showing Bobby just how absurd his statement is.  > Peace,  On a side note, I notice you always sign your posts "Peace".  Perhaps you should take your own advice and leave the atheists in peace with their beliefs?  > Bobby Mozumder  Nanci
In article <11857@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes: >From: bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) >Subject: Re: Requests >Date: 19 Apr 93 18:25:08 GMT >In article <C5qLLG.4BC@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> mayne@cs.fsu.edu writes: >> (excess stuff deleted...)       >  However, it seems that a local church elder has been getting >  revelations from god about a devastating quake scheduled to level >  the area on May 3rd.  He has independent corroboration from >  several friends, who apparently have had similar revelations.  The >  5.7 quake was, in fact, in response to a request from the lot of >  them seeking a sign from god on the veracity of their visions. > >  None of this would be terribly interesting, except for the amount >  of stir it has created in the area.  Many, many people are taking >  these claims very seriously.  There are some making plans to be >  out of the are on the target date.  My local religious radio >  station devoted 4 hours of discussion on the topic.   > >  I even called up during one of the live broadcasts to tell the >  host that he would have a full account of my conversion on May >  4th, provided my family and I survived the devastation and ruin >  that will invariably follow the quake. > >/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\  > >Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM  > >They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away, >and sank Manhattan out at sea. > >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  I know of a similar incident about 3 years ago.  A climatologist( Ithink  that was his profession) named Iben Browning predicted that an earthquake  would hit the New Madrid fault on Dec.3.  Some schools in Missouri that were  on the fault line actually cancelled school for the day.  Many people  evacuated New Madrid and other towns in teh are.  I wouldn't be suprised if  there were more journalists in the area than residents.  Of course, teh  earthquake never occured.  HOw do I know about his?  I used to live in  Southern Illinois and the lican middle school was built directly on the  fault line.  No we still had school... We laughed at the poor idiots who  believed the prediction. :):):):)  Bob, if you're wanting an excuse to convert to Christianity, you gonna have  to look elsewhere.
: The willingness of true believers : to die for their belief, be it in Jesus or Jim Jones, is : well-documented, so martyrdom in and of itself says little.  It does say something about the depth of their belief.  Religion has both deluded believers and con men.  The difference is often how far they will follow their beliefs.  I have no first hand, or even second hand, knowledge of how the  original apostles died.  If they began a myth in hopes of exploiting it for profit, and followed that myth to the death, that would be inconsistent.  Real con men would bail out when it was obvious it would  lead to discomfort, pain and death.
(reference line trimmed)  livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:  [...]  >There is a good deal more confusion here.   You started off with the  >assertion that there was some "objective" morality, and as you admit >here, you finished up with a recursive definition.   Murder is  >"objectively" immoral, but eactly what is murder and what is not itself >requires an appeal to morality.  Yes.  >Now you have switch targets a little, but only a little.   Now you are >asking what is the "goal"?   What do you mean by "goal?".   Are you >suggesting that there is some "objective" "goal" out there somewhere, >and we form our morals to achieve it?  Well, for example, the goal of "natural" morality is the survival and propogation of the species.  Another example of a moral system is presented within the Declaration of Independence, which states that we should be guaranteed life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  You see, to have a moral system, we must define the purpose of the system.  That is, we shall be moral unto what end?  >>Murder is certainly a violation of the golden rule.  And, I thought I had >>defined murder as an intentional killing of a non-murderer, against his will. >>And you responded to this by asking whether or not the execution of an >>innocent person under our system of capital punishment was a murder or not. >>I fail to see what this has to do with anything.  I never claimed that our >>system of morality was an objective one. >I thought that was your very first claim.   That there was >some kind of "objective" morality, and that an example of that was >that murder is wrong.   If you don't want to claim that any more, >that's fine.  Well, murder violates the golen rule, which is certainly a pillar of most every moral system.  However, I am not assuming that our current system and the manner of its implementation are objectively moral.  I think that it is a very good approximation, but we can't be perfect.  >And by the way, you don't seem to understand the difference between >"arbitrary" and "objective".   If Keith Schneider "defines" murder >to be this that and the other, that's arbitrary.   Jon Livesey may >still say "Well, according to my personal system of morality, all >killing of humans against their will is murder, and wrong, and what >the legal definition of murder may be in the USA, Kuweit, Saudi >Arabia, or the PRC may be matters not a whit to me".  Well, "objective" would assume a system based on clear and fundamental concepts, while "arbitary" implies no clear line of reasoning.
In article <66018@mimsy.umd.edu> mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:  >The amount of energy being spent on ONE LOUSY SYLLOGISM says volumes for the >true position of reason in this group.  	I agree, we spend too much energy on the nonexistance of God.  --          "Satan and the Angels do not have freewill.           They do what god tells them to do. "
On 20 Apr 93 08:31:07 GMT timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu (Bake Timmons) wrote: >mccullou@whipple.cs.wisc.edu writes:  [writing to someone else]  >But you, probably like me, seem to be a soft atheist.  Sorry for the flamage.  Can we get back to using the terms "strong Atheist" and "weak Atheist" rather than this "hard Atheist" and "soft Atheist".  I can imagine  future discussions with Newbies where there is confusion because of the multiplication of descriptions.  [rest deleted]
Jon Livesey writes:  >So when they took the time to *copy* *the* *text* correctly, that includes >"obvious corruptions?"  Well, yes.  This is the real mystery of the matter, and why I am rather dubious of a lot of the source theories.  There are a number of places where the Masoretic Text (MT) of the OT is obscure and presumably corrupted.  These are reproduced exactly from copy to copy.  The DSS tend to reflect the same "errors".  This would appear to tell us that, at least from some point, people began to copy the texts very exactingly and mechanically.  The problem is, we don't know what they did before that.  But it seems as though accurate transmission begins at the point at which the texts are perceived as texts.  They may be added to (and in some situations, such as the end of Mark, material is lost), but for the most part there are no substantial changes to the existing text.  You're basically trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.  Some people like to use the game of "telephone" as a metaphor for the transmission of the texts.  This clearly wrong.  The texts are transmitted accurately.
Mark McCullough (mccullou@snake10.cs.wisc.edu) wrote: : I heard about the arms sale to Saudi Arabia.  Now, how is it such a grave : mistake to sell Saudi Arabia weapons?  Or are you claiming that we shouldn't : sell any weapons to other countries?  Straightforward answer please.  Saudi Arabia is an oppressive regime that has been recently interfering in the politcs of newly renunified Yemen, including assasinations and  border incursions. It is entirely possible that they will soon invade. Unluckily for Yemen it is not popular in the West as they managed to put aside political differences during reunification and thus the West has effectively lost one half (North?) as a client state.
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:  >Now along comes Mr Keith Schneider and says "Here is an "objective >moral system".  And then I start to ask him about the definitions >that this "objective" system depends on, and, predictably, the whole >thing falls apart.  It only falls apart if you attempt to apply it.  This doesn't mean that an objective system can't exist.  It just means that one cannot be implemented.
In <930421.122032.2c0.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew writes:  > > Did that FAQ ever got modified to re-define strong atheists as not those who > > assert the nonexistence of God, but as those who assert that they BELIEVE in  > > the nonexistence of God? >  > In a word, yes. >  > mathew  Mathew:  Could you let us know when this happened, so I can see if my version is as up-to-date as possible?  I try to re-save the FAQs once in a  while, but otherwise I ignore their regular postings, so I wouldn't  generally notice such a change.  And I like to stay current.  Thanks,