waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In <2943927496.1.p00261@psilink.com> "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com> writes:  >>DATE:   14 Apr 1993 23:52:11 GMT >>FROM:   Frank O'Dwyer <frank@D012S658.uucp> >> >>In article <1993Apr14.102810.6059@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes: >> >>Just borrowing your post, Mr. Rice... >> >>#In <2943656910.0.p00261@psilink.com> "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com> writes: >>#>Are you sure that democracy is the driving force behind >>#>the massacres in East Timor?  It is certainly odd that so many of the worlds >>#>massacres occur along religious lines, independently of any claims to a >>#>democratic form of government.  Are Ireland and Northern Ireland considered >>#>democracies?  Would you attribute their problems to democracy even though >>#>they are democracies?  Which motivates them more, religion or democracy? >> >>Mr. Rice was pointing out a fallacy in the assertion that Islam is evil >>because some of those who claim to follow it are evil, not asserting that  >>democracy causes massacres, as I read it.    >That is right, he was.  And I was pointing out that his use of Indonesians >killing the East Timorese as a result of _democracy_ was a bit weak because >democracy is not much of a motivation for doing much of anything in Indonesia >from what I remember.  East Timor was a former Portguese territory which was >forcibly annexed by Indonesia.  Last I heard over 10,000 Indonesians have >died trying to keep East Timor a part of Indonesia.  Being a former  >Portuguese colony, there is a strong Catholic influence in East Timor as I >recall.  So it seems a bit odd that yet again we have another war being >fought between people who just "happen" to have different religions.  Purely >coincidental, I guess.  But then the real motivation is to get the vote out >and make democracy work in Indonesia.  I pointed out the secession movement in Aceh which has also been brutally dealt with in the past by the Indonesian government.  The harshly with all secessionist movements. the evidence, it appears to me that the Indonesian government has dealt very harshly with all secession movements.  I know that the head of the Indonesian armed forces for a very long time was Benny Murdani -- a "Christian".  Indonesia has been heavy handed in East Timor for a long time , even when Murdani was head of the armed forces.  The people who make up the Indonesian government are in general motivated by national interests, not religious ones.
In article <30136@ursa.bear.com> halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) writes: >In article <1qjd3o$nlv@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes: >>Firstly, science has its basis in values, not the other way round. >>So you better explain what objective atoms are, and how we get them >>from subjective values, before we go any further. > >Atoms are not objective.  They aren't even real.  What scientists call >an atom is nothing more than a mathematical model that describes  >certain physical, observable properties of our surroundings.  All >of which is subjective.    [rest deleted...]  You were a liberal arts major, weren'tcha?  Guess you never saw that photo of the smallest logo in the world-- "IBM" made with noble gas atoms (krypton? xenon? I forget the specifics).  Atoms, trees, electrons are all independently observable and verifiable. Morals aren't. See the difference?  Tep
In article <1r7bkpINNo0s@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:    >No.  Well, again I stated that a painless death isn't cruel, but I don't >think I stated that all painful executions *are* cruel.  I think that some >are cruel, depending on the nature and duration of the pain.  	But hanging is certainly painful. Or, do you not let the condemned  know they are going to die?   >Anything more than an instant, I guess.  Any death by suffocation >asphyxiation, or blood loss would be cruel, I think (this includes the >gas chamber, and drawing and quartering).  I'd say that any pain that >lasts, say, over twenty seconds or so would be too long (but this may >be an arbitrary cutoff, I suppose).  	Hanging is not supposed to be very pleasant. I believe that in  actuality, it is not "quick and clean". However, gas chambers can be quite non-painful. Heck, why not give them a good time? Suffication by Nitrious Oxide!  	=)   ---  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.
In article <1r8tpi$4pu@dr-pepper.East.Sun.COM> geoff@East.Sun.COM (Geoff Arnold @ Sun BOS - R.H. coast near the top) writes:  >[This Raymond Smullyan quote is too big for a .sig, but deserves posting IMHO.]  	To big for a .sig?   	No way!   	Keith " Home of the billdboard .sig files " Ryan  	=)  ---  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.
kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:  >>I don't think so.  Although some forms of execution are painful (the electric >>chair looks particularly so), I think the pain is relatively short-lived. >>Drawing and quartering, on the other hand, looks very painful, and the >>victim wouldn't die right away (he'd bleed to death, I'd imagine). >Ah, so a cruel punishment is not just if it is painful, as you  >origionally stated. It is about long term pain, eg: non short-lived. >Why this sudden chance in your stance?  I don't think I've changed my stance at all.  My original stance was that a painless execution was not a cruel one.  I didn't say what would be considered cruel, only that a painless death wasn't.  Now, cruelty must involve some sort of suffering, I believe.  I don't think someone that gets shot in the head or electrocuted really suffers very much.  Even a hanging probably produces one sharp instance of pain, but it's over so quickly...  >Hmmmmm?  Pardon?  >Could it be that a counter example has been made, which renders your  >previous stance null and void? Why don't you admit that your previous stance  >is incorrect? Or, if you somehow managed to slip up, and misstated your  >origional stance, why not admit it?  No.  Well, again I stated that a painless death isn't cruel, but I don't think I stated that all painful executions *are* cruel.  I think that some are cruel, depending on the nature and duration of the pain.  >By the way, how long is too long?  Anything more than an instant, I guess.  Any death by suffocation asphyxiation, or blood loss would be cruel, I think (this includes the gas chamber, and drawing and quartering).  I'd say that any pain that lasts, say, over twenty seconds or so would be too long (but this may be an arbitrary cutoff, I suppose).
The latest news seems to be that Koresh will give himself up once he's finished writing a sequel to the Bible.
In article <UfnYJ2a00VoqIT9VpA@andrew.cmu.edu> nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu (Nanci Ann Miller) writes: >jcopelan@nyx.cs.du.edu (The One and Only) writes: >> Welcome.  I am the official keeper of the list of nicknames that people >> are known by on alt.atheism (didn't know we had such a list, did you). >> Your have been awarded the nickname of "Buckminster."  So the next time >> you post an article, sign with your nickname like so: >> Dave "Buckminster" Fuller.  Thanks again. >>  >> Jim "Humor means never having to say you're sorry" Copeland > >Of course, the list has to agree with the nickname laws laid down by the >GIPU almost 2000 years ago (you know... the 9 of them that were written on >the iron tablets that melted once and had to be reinscribed?).  Since I am >a prophet of the GIPU I decree that you should post the whole list of >nicknames for the frequent posters here!  If the first rule of humor is never having to say you're sorry then the  second rule must be never having to explain yourself.  Few things are  worse that a joke explained.  In spite of this, and because of requests for me to post my list o' nicknames, I must admit that no such list exists.  It was simply a plot device, along with me being the keeper o' the list, to make the obvious play on the last name of Fuller and to advance the idea that such a list should be made.  I assumed that the ol' timers would recognize it for what it is.   Nevertheless, how about a list o' nicknames for alt.atheism posters? If you think of a good one, just post it and see if others like it. We could start with those posters who annoy us the most, like Bobby or Bill.  Jim "D'oh! I broke the second rule of humor" Copeland
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:  [...] >>The "`little' things" above were in reference to Germany, clearly.  People >>said that there were similar things in Germany, but no one could name any. >That's not true.  I gave you two examples.  One was the rather >pevasive anti-semitism in German Christianity well before Hitler >arrived.  The other was the system of social ranks that were used >in Imperail Germany and Austria to distinguish Jews from the rest  >of the population.  These don't seem like "little things" to me.  At least, they are orders worse than the motto.  Do you think that the motto is a "little thing" that will lead to worse things?
In article <1993Apr15.163317.20805@cs.nott.ac.uk> eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk (C.Wainwright) writes: >In article <115437@bu.edu>, jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:   >|> The authorities I am referring to is the authority of the world >|> Islamic community over itself. My point was simply that Islamic >|> law does apply to muslims wherever they are despite the fact that  >|> Islamic law may not be enforcable in non-Islamic countries.  >Muslims residing in the UK may decide to be 'tried' (or whatever) by the >Islamic community, but their rulings have no legal consequences in these >isles.    It's not really their _decision_ to be tried. The rulings _do_ have legal consequences, but only in Islamic law and not in UK law (this should be obvious). Enforcing a judgment is distinct from the making of a judgment. Take for example the judgments of the World Court. This is an internationally recognized tribunal whose judgments often have no physical or economic effect but which _are_ important despite the fact that their judgments cannot be enforced  >The person may be excommunicated (or similar) but if it decided to  >mete out violent laws such as the fatwa then it would be breaking UK laws >itself, and the persons doing such would be liable to prosecution.    Of course, have you read any of this thread before this post?    > To ignore >the country's laws in preference to religious laws which are not indigenous >to the country in question is an absurd and arrogant notion.  Of course, it is a sort of anarchism. Anarchism is explicitly against Islam. Thank you for your well reasoned response, but it is beside the points I've been making in this thread.
In article <1993Apr3.100039.15879@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>, darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes: |> In <1p8ivt$cfj@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: |>  |> >Should we British go around blowing up skyscrapers next? |>  |> I don't know if you are doing so, but it seems you are implying  |> (1) that the person accused of blowing up the WTC in NY actually did it, |> and |> (2) that Islamic teachings have something to do with blowing up the WTC.  I was replying to a person who attempted to justify the fatwa against Rushdie on the grounds that his work was intentionally insulting.   I think that to take a single sentence from a fairly long posting, and to say   	"I don't know if you are doing so, but it  	seems you are implying....."  is at the very best quite disingenuous, and perhaps even dishonest.    If anyone care to dig back and read the full posting, they will see nothing of the kind.  I trust you don't deny that Islamic teaching has "something to do" with the fatwa against Rushdie?
SCOTT D. SAUYET (SSAUYET@eagle.wesleyan.edu) wrote:  : Regardless of people's hidden motivations, the stated reasons for many : wars include religion.  Of course you can always claim that the REAL : reason was economics, politics, ethnic strife, or whatever.  But the : fact remains that the justification for many wars has been to conquer : the heathens.  : If you want to say, for instance, that economics was the chief cause : of the Crusades, you could certainly make that point.  But someone : could come along and demonstrate that it was REALLY something else, in : the same manner you show that it was REALLY not religion.  You could : in this manner eliminate all possible causes for the Crusades. :           Scott,  I don't have to make outrageous claims about religion's affecting and effecting history, for the purpsoe of a.a, all I have to do point out that many claims made here are wrong and do nothing to validate atheism. At no time have I made any statement that religion was the sole cause of anything, what I have done is point out that those who do make that kind of claim are mistaken, usually deliberately.   To credit religion with the awesome power to dominate history is to misunderstand human nature, the function of religion and of course, history. I believe that those who distort history in this way know exaclty what they're doing, and do it only for affect.
James Felder (spbach@lerc.nasa.gov) wrote:  : Logic alert -  argument from incredulity.  Just because it is hard for you  : to believe this doesn't mean that it isn't true.  Liars can be very pursuasive : just look at Koresh that you yourself cite.  This is whole basis of a great many here rejecting the Christian account of things. In the words of St. Madalyn Murrey-O'Hair, "Face it folks, it's just silly ...". Why is it okay to disbelieve because of your incredulity if you admit that it's a fallacy?
In article <1993Apr15.215833.15970@bnr.ca> (Rashid) writes:   >> 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.    I think many reading this group would also benefit by knowing how deviant the view _as I've articulated it above_ (which may not be the true view of Khomeini) is from the basic principles of Islam.  So that the non-muslim readers of this group will see how far from  the simple basics of Islam such views are on the face of them. And  if they are _not_ in contradiction with the basics of Islam, how  subtle such issues are and how it seems sects exist in Islam while  they are explicitly proscribed by the Qur'an.   >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.   In my opinion considering any human being as having a substance or metaphysical fundamentally different from that of any other human being _is_ a heretical notion and one proscribed by Islam.    >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.   Absolutely! I would be interested in discussing this privately and I am interested in hearing how one might try to make the concept of error-free and sinless human beings philosophically consistent with the teachings of the Qur'an. However, _prima facie_ such attemptsa are highly susceptible to degenerating into monkery, explicitly proscribed by the Qur'an.   >As salaam a-laikum  Alaikum Wassalam
In article <C6697n.33o@panix.com>, carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink) writes... >In <sheafferC63zt0.Brs@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes: >  >[deletion] >>It had to happen: the old allegation of the "deathbed conversion" of the >>noted unbeliever. I seem to recall similar claims being made about >>Voltaire, Mencken, Darwin, Ingersoll, etc. Indeed, the literary hoax >>attributed to Nietzsche, "My Sister and I", portrays him as trembling >>in fear before Divine Judgment (and it was recently re-issued by _Amok_ >>Books, with an introduction by a Lutheran professor telling us why we >>should take it seriously!). What all of these "deathbed conversion" >>claims have in common is that they are utterly unsubstantiated, and >>almost certainly untrue. >  >  Perhaps the least believable and most infurating alleged conversion >was that of Tom Paine, reported, like most, only by his devout >relatives. >  >  Asimov was very unlikely to convert to Christianity on his deathbed. >Return to Judaism, perhaps, if he did revert to childhood training, >but Christianity?  The Good Doctor would more likely have converted to >Hinduism.  "Isaac Asimov read creationist books.  He read the Bible.  He had ample opportunity to kneel before his Creator and Savior.  He refused.  In fact, he sent out a strong promotional letter urging support of the American Humanist Association, shortly before he died."     --excerpt from Ken Ham, "Asimov Meets His Creator," _Back to Genesis_      No. 42, June 1992, p. c (included in _Acts & Facts_ vol. 21, no. 6,      June 1992, from the Institute for Creation Research).  This is one      of the most offensive articles they've ever published--but at least      it argues *against* a deathbed conversion.  There's a part of the      article even worse than what I've just quoted, in which an excerpt      from a reader's letter says that if Asimov is burning in hell now,      "then he certainly has had a 180-degree change in his former beliefs      about creation and the Creator."  (A post-deathbed conversion.)
In article <C5rGKB.4Fs@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>, bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) wrote: > 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 ...  Well, as I remember Jacoby's "Mythmaker" talks about this to cite one source -- but I'm not sure if all Christians have read this book. In addition my social experiences is from being raised and educated as a Lutheran, having a lot of Christian friends, and I even have played in two Christian rock bands!  So, over to you, do you have any counter claims, sources et  rest that shows that Christianity does not have the concept of a social promise that is independent on the social status?  Cheers, Kent
Maddi Hausmann chirps:  >timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu (Bake Timmons) writes: >  >>First of all, you seem to be a reasonable guy.  Why not try to be more >honest >>and include my sentence afterwards that  >Honest, it just ended like that, I swear!  That's nice.  >Hmmmm...I recognize the warning signs...alternating polite and >rude...coming into newsgroup with huge chip on shoulder...calls >people names and then makes nice...whirrr...click...whirrr  You forgot the third equality...whirrr...click...whirrr...see below...  >Whirr click whirr...Frank O'Dwyer might also be contained >in that shell...pop stack to determine...whirr...click..whirr  >"Killfile" Keith Allen Schneider = Frank "Closet Theist" O'Dwyer = ...  = Maddi "The Mad Sound-O-Geek" Hausmann  ...whirrr...click...whirrr  -- Bake Timmons, III
kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:  >>No, that's just what you thought the theory meant.  While all humans >>are generally capable of overpowering their instincts, it does not >>follow that those who do this often are necessarily more intelligent. >Ok, so why aren't animals "generally capable of overpowering their instincts"?  Good question.  I'm sure some biologist could answer better than I, but animals brains are just set up differently.  Animals *can* be trained, but if they're instincts serve them well, there is no reason to contradict them.
Adda Wainwright writes:  >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 acquaintance was >approximately 50 years after the death of Jesus.  This is, as far as I know, complete nonsense.  The codification of the bible as we have it now came very much later.
>DATE:   5 Apr 1993 23:32:28 GMT >FROM:   Jon Livesey <livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com> > >In article <114127@bu.edu>, jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes: >|>  >|> I don't understand the point of this petty sarcasm. It is a basic  >|> principle of Islam that if one is born muslim or one says "I testify >|> that there is no god but God and Mohammad is a prophet of God" that, >|> so long as one does not explicitly reject Islam by word then one _must_ >|> be considered muslim by all muslims. So the phenomenon you're attempting >|> to make into a general rule or psychology is a direct odds with basic >|> Islamic principles. If you want to attack Islam you could do better than >|> than to argue against something that Islam explicitly contradicts. > >Then Mr Mozumder is incorrect when he says that when committing >bad acts, people temporarily become atheists? > >jon.  Of course B.M. is not incorrect.  He is defending Islam.  When defending Islam against infidels you can say anything and no one will dare criticize you.  But when an atheist uses the same argument he is using "petty sarcasm".  So B.M. can have his "temporary atheists" whenever he needs them and all the "temporary atheists" can later say that they were always good Muslims because they never explicitly rejected Islam.
This is fascinating. Atheists argue for abortion, defend homosexuality as a means of population control, insist that the only values are biological and condemn war and capital punishment. According to Benedikt, if something is contardictory, it cannot exist, which in this case means atheists I suppose. I would like to understand how an atheist can object to war (an excellent means of controlling population growth), or to capital punishment, I'm sorry but the logic escapes me. And why just capital punishment, what is being questioned here, the propriety of killing or of punishment? What is the basis of the ecomplaint?
In article <1ql7utINN5sg@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes: |> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: |>  |> >I want to know how this omniscient being is going to perform |> >the feat of "definitely" terming actions right or wrong. |>  |> If you were omniscient, you'd know who exactly did what, and with what |> purpose in mind.  Then, with a particular goal in mind, you sould be |> able to methodically judge whether or not this action was in accordance |> with the general goal.  But now you are contradicting yourself in a pretty massive way, and I don't think you've even noticed.  In another part of this thread, you've been telling us that the "goal" of a natural morality is what animals do to survive.  But suppose that your omniscient being told you that the long term survival of humanity requires us to exterminate some  other species, either terrestrial or alien.  Does that make it moral to do so?