waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <kmr4.1444.734058912@po.CWRU.edu>, kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes... >In article <SUOPANKI.93Apr6024902@stekt6.oulu.fi> suopanki@stekt6.oulu.fi (Heikki T. Suopanki) writes: >>:> God is eternal.    [A = B] >>:> Jesus is God.      [C = A] >>:> Therefore, Jesus is eternal.  [C = B] >> >>:> This works both logically and mathematically.  God is of the set of >>:> things which are eternal.  Jesus is a subset of God.   Therefore >>:> Jesus belongs to the set of things which are eternal.  The first premise and the conclusion are not properly translated as identity statements, since the "is" in those statements is the "is" of predication rather than of identity.  Instead, they should be translated using a predicate letter.  Using "g" to designate God and "j" to designate Jesus, and the predicate letter "E" for the property of being eternal, the first premise is Eg and the conclusion is Ej.     The second premise appears to contain an "is" of identity, in which case it can be properly symbolized as j = g.  But your remark that "Jesus is a subset of God" suggests that strict identity is not desired here. If, however, the first premise means that all members making up the set God have the property of being eternal, the same conclusion follows.
On Tue, 20 Apr 1993 04:32:59 GMT bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) wrote: >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.  What atheists are you talking about?    IMNSHO, Abortion is the womans choice.  Homosexual sex is the choice of  the people involved.  War is sometimes necessary.    This leaves capital punishment.  I oppose capital punishemnt because  mistakes can happen (yes this thread went around with no resolution recently).  As far as poplulation control, I think contraception and education are the best courses of action.  >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.  That's because you are again making the assumption that all Atheists  have some specific mindset.  >And why just capital punishment, what is being questioned here, the >propriety of killing or of punishment? What is the basis of the >ecomplaint?  Mistakes can happen Bill, and I could be the victim of such a mistake.
: >> The death penalty was conceived as a deterrent to crime,  but the legal : >> shenanigans that have been added (automatic appeals, lengthy court : >> battles, etc.) have relegated that purpose to a very small part of what : >> it should be.  Hence the question is,  do we instate the death penalty as : >> it was meant to be, and see if that deters crime, or do we get rid of : >> it entirely?    I doubt the death penalty was supposed to be a "deterrent" to crime. If so, why doesn't every crime carry a death penalty ? That would be effictive wouldn't it ???    The death penalty is a punishment, much like a $50 fine for speeding is a punishment. Anyway, somebody with murder on the mind doesn't much care about the consequences. I think another problem is that people dont think they will get caught. If I wanted to kill another person, I wouldn't  care what the penalty was if I didn't think I would get caught.    If it was to be strictly a deterrent, it should have been more along  the lines of torture.
In article <C5ws1s.7ns@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes: |> In <1r4ioh$44t@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)  |> writes: |> > |>In article <C5qGM3.DL8@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike  >|> Cobb) writes: |> >|>  |> >|> This doesn't seem right.  If I want to kill you, I can because that is  |> what I |> >|> decide? |>  |> >Sounds as though you are confused between "what I want" and "what |> >I think is morally right". |>  |> >jon. |>  |>  |> What do you mean?  Would your idea still apply if I said I think it is ok to  |> kill you because that is what I decided?  What I mean is what I said.   "What I want" does not automatically translate into "what I think is right."   That is, it does not  translate that way for me.  If you reply that "I think it is ok to kill you because that is what  I decided" then what that means is that for you "What I want" does translate into "what I think is right".  It just doesn't translate that way for me.
In article <1993Apr5.171143.828@batman.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:  >God is effectively limited in the same sense.  He is all powerful, but >He cannot use His power in a way that would violate the essence of what >He, Himself is.  	Cannot? Try, will not.  ---          "One thing that relates is among Navy men that get tatoos that          say "Mom", because of the love of their mom.  It makes for more          virile men."          Bobby Mozumder  ( snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu )         April 4, 1993
>DATE:   Tue, 6 Apr 1993 00:11:49 GMT >FROM:   F. Karner <karner@austin.ibm.com> > >In article <1993Apr2.103237.4627@Cadence.COM>, mas@Cadence.COM (Masud Khan) writes: >> In article <C4qAv2.24wG@austin.ibm.com> karner@austin.ibm.com (F. Karner) writes: >> > >> >Okay.  So you want me to name names?  There are obviously no official >> >records of these pseudo-marriages because they are performed for >> >convenience.  What happens typically is that the woman is willing to move >> >in with her lover without any scruples or legal contracts to speak of.  >> >The man is merely utilizing a loophole by entering into a temporary >> >religious "marriage" contract in order to have sex.  Nobody complains, >> >nobody cares, nobody needs to know. >> > >> >Perhaps you should alert your imam.  It could be that this practice is >> >far more widespread than you may think.  Or maybe it takes 4 muslim men >> >to witness the penetration to decide if the practice exists! >> >--  >> > >>  >> Again you astound me with the level of ignorance you display, Muslims >> are NOT allowed to enter temporary marriages, got that? There is >> no evidence for it it an outlawed practise so get your facts  >> straight buddy. Give me references for it or just tell everyone you >> were lying. It is not a widespread as you may think (fantasise) in >> fact contrary to your fantasies it is not practised at all amongst >> Muslims.  Did you miss my post on this topic with the quote from The Indonesian Handbook and Fred Rice's comments about temporary marriages?  If so,  I will be glad to repost them.  Will you accept that it just may be  a practice among some Muslims, if I do?  Or will you continue to claim that we are all lying and that it is "not practised at all amongst Muslims".  I don't think F. Karner has to tell everyone anything.  Least of all that he is lying.
In article <1qlb7oINN684@shelley.u.washington.edu>  jimh@carson.u.washington.edu (James Hogan) writes:   >20:52 P.S.T.  I come to my senses and accept the all-knowing >wisdom and power of the Quran and Allah.  Not only that, but Allah  >himself drops by to congratulate me on my wise choice. Allah rolls a >few bones and we get down.  Then Allah gets out the Crisco, bends  >over, and invites me to take a spin around the block.  Wow.   >20:56 P.S.T.  I realize that maybe Allah is looking for more of a  >commitment than I'm ready for, so I say "Man, I've got some >programming to do.  Gotta go.  I'll call you."   >20:59 P.S.T   Thinking it over, I renounce Islam.  What loyalty!  Jim, it seems you've been reading a little too much Russell Hoban lately. As Hemingway said, my imitators always imitate the _bad_ aspects of my writing. Hoban would, no doubt, say the same here.
In article <ofnWyG600WB699voA=@andrew.cmu.edu> pl1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Patrick C Leger) writes: >EVER HEAR OF >BAPTISM AT BIRTH?  If that isn't preying on the young, I don't know what >is... >      No, that's praying on the young.  Preying on the young comes   later, when the bright eyed little altar boy finds out what the   priest really wears under that chasible.   /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\   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 would like a list of Bible contadictions from those of you who dispite being free from Christianity are well versed in the Bible.
BR> From: wpr@atlanta.dg.com (Bill Rawlins) BR> Newsgroups: alt.atheism BR> Organization: DGSID, Atlanta, GA  BR>         The problem is that most scientists exclude the BR> possibility of the         supernatural in the question of BR> origins.  Is this is a fair premise?         I utterly BR> reject the hypothesis that science is the highest form of    BR>      truth.  It is better than the crap that the creationists put out.  So far all they have been able to manage is distortions and half-truths. (When they are not taking quotes out of context...)  BR>         Some of these so-called human-like creatures were BR> apes.  Some were         humans.  Some were fancifully BR> reconstructed from fragments.   The genetic code has shown more about how man is realted to primates that the fossil record.  (A little detail the creationists try and ignore.)  BR>            Good deeds do not justify a person in God's BR> sight.            An atonement (Jesus) is needed to atone BR> for sin.  Who says?  Your Bible(tm)?	I would be surprised if *ANY* Christian followed all of the rules in the Bible.  (Most of them just pick and choose, according to the local biases.)  BR>      My point: God is the creator.  Look's like we agree.  Where is your proof?  How do you know it was *YOUR* God?  BR>      I'll send you some info via e-mail. BR>      Regards, Bill.  Why not post them?	I would be interested in seeing them myself.
[deletions...]  In <1993Apr13.184227.1191@ultb.isc.rit.edu> snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:  >I really don't think you can imagine what it is like to be infinite.  First of all, infinity is a mathematical concept created by humans to explain certain things in a certain way. We don't know if it actually applies to reality, we don't know if anything in the world is infinite.  >It wouldn't be able to >comprehend what reality is like for the programmer, because that would >require an infinite memory or whatever because reality is continuous and >based on infinietely small units- no units.  You don't know if the universe is actually continuous. Continuum is another mathematical concept (based on infinity) used to explain things in a certain way.  >Because humans do not know what infinite is.  We call it something >beyond numbers.  We call it endless, but we do not know what it is.  I have a pretty good idea of what infinity is. It's a man-made concept, and like many man-made concepts, it has evolved through time. Ancient Greeks had a different understanding of it.  >So, we can call Allah infinitely powerful, knowledgeable, etc.., yet we >cannot imagine what Allah actually is, because we just cannot imagine >what it is like to be infinite.  Precicely. We don't even know if infinity applies to reality.
In article <C5HIEw.7s1@portal.hq.videocart.com>, dfuller@portal.hq.videocart.com (Dave Fuller) wrote: >   He is right. Just because an event was explained by a human to have been > done "in the name of religion", does not mean that it actually followed > the religion. He will always point to the "ideal" and say that it wasn't > followed so it can't be the reason for the event. There really is no way > to argue with him, so why bother. Sure, you may get upset because his  > answer is blind and not supported factually - but he will win every time > with his little argument. I don't think there will be any postings from > me in direct response to one of his.  Hey! Glad to have some serious and constructive contributors in this newsgroup. I agree 100% on the statement above, you might argue with Bobby for eons, and he still does not get it, so the best thing is to spare your mental resources to discuss more interesting issues.  Cheers, Kent
In article <1r5emjINNmk@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes: |> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes: |>  |> >But, this just shows then that painful execution is not considered  |> >"cruel" and unusual punishment. This shows that "cruel" as used in the  |> >constitution does NOT refer to whether or not the punishment causes physical  |> >pain. |> >Rather, it must be a different meaning. |>  |> 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).  So what do we have now, an integral over pain X time?  I get to lash you with a wet noodle for ever, but I only get to cut you up with a power saw if I'm quick about it?
In article <1993Apr6.041343.24997@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> stank@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Stan Krieger) writes:  >Roger and I have >clearly stated our support of the BSA position on the issue; >specifically, that homosexual behavior constitutes a violation of >the Scout Oath (specifically, the promise to live "morally straight"). > >There is really nothing else to discuss.  Apparently not.  In response to his claim that it "terrifies" gay people not to be able to "indoctrinate children to our lifestyle" (or words to that effect), I sent Roger a very calm, carefully-written, detailed letter explaining simply why the BSA policy does, indeed terrify me.  I did not use inflammatory language and left myself extremely open for an answer.  Thus far, I have not received an answer.  I can conclude only that Roger considers his position either indefensible or simply not worth defending.  >Trying to cloud the issue >with comparisons to Blacks or other minorities is also meaningless >because it's like comparing apples to oranges (i.e., people can't >control their race but they can control their behavior).  In fact, that's exactly the point: people can control their behavior. Because of that fact, there is no need for a blanket ban on homosexuals.  >What else is there to possibly discuss on rec.scouting on this issue?  You tell me.
In article <1993Apr2.115300.803@batman.bmd.trw.com>, jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes: |> In article <C4twso.8M2@HQ.Ileaf.COM>, mukesh@HQ.Ileaf.COM (Mukesh Prasad) writes: |> > In article <1993Apr1.142854.794@batman.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes: |> >> In article <1p8v1aINN9e9@matt.ksu.ksu.edu>, strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes: |> >> > bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes: |> >> >  |> >> >>- The Earth is evil because Satan rules over it. |> >> >  |> >> > This is a new one to me.  I guess it's been a while since a Witness |> >> > bothered with me.  Are they implying that Satan is omniscient?  You |> >> > might try tricking them into saying that Satan is 'all-knowing' and |> >> > then use that statement to show them how their beliefs are |> >> > self-contradictary.   |> >>  |> >> No, Satan is not omniscient, but he does hold dominion over the earth |> >> according to Christian theology (note, not to be confused with JW's |> >> theology).  |> >>  |> >  |> > What are the standard theologies on who/what created Satan, |> > and why? |> >  |>  |> Orthodox Christian theology states that God created Lucifer (Satan) |> along with the other angels, presumably because He wanted beings to |> celebrate (glorify) existence and life (and thereby, God) along with |> Him.  Actually the whys and wherefores of God's motivations for  |> creating the angels are not a big issue within Christian theology. |>  |> But God created Lucifer with a perfect nature and gave him along with |> the other angels free moral will.  Lucifer was a high angel (perhaps |> the highest) with great authority.  It seems that his greatness caused |> him to begin to take pride in himself and desire to be equal to or |> greater than God.  He forgot his place as a created being.  He exalted |> himself above God, and thereby evil and sin entered creation.  Actually, the story goes that Lucifer refused to bow before MAN as  God commanded him to.  Lucifer was devoted to God.  Oh yeah, there is nothing in Genesis that says the snake was anything more than a snake (well, a talking one...had legs at the time, too).  I don't think pointing out contradictions in STORIES is the best way to show the error in theology:  if they think a supernatural entity kicked the first humans out of paradise because they bit into a fruit that gave them special powers...well, they might not respond well to reason and logic.  :^)
In article 11853@vice.ICO.TEK.COM, bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes: |> |>  Yet I am still not a believer.  Is god not concerned with my |>  disposition?  Why is it beneath him to provide me with the |>  evidence I would require to believe?  The evidence that my |>  personality, given to me by this god, would find compelling?
jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes: > The problem with most peace-niks it they consider those of us who are > not like them to be "bad" and "unconscionable".  I would not have any > argument or problem with a peace-nik if they held to their ideals and > stayed out of all conflicts or issues, especially those dealing with  > the national defense.  But no, they are not willing to allow us to > legitimately hold a different point-of-view.  They militate and  > many times resort to violence all in the name of peace.  <Yawn>  Another right-wing WASP imagining he's an oppressed minority.  Perhaps Camille Paglia is right after all.  "I would not have any argument or problem with a peace-nik if they [...] stayed out of all conflicts or issues"?  I bet you wouldn't.  You'd love it.   But what makes you think that sitting back, saying nothing about defense issues, and letting people like you make all the decisions is anything to do with "their ideals"?
sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:  >>To borrow from philosophy, you don't truly understand the color red >>until you have seen it. >Not true, even if you have experienced the color red you still might >have a different interpretation of it.  But, you wouldn't know what red *was*, and you certainly couldn't judge it subjectively.  And, objectivity is not applicable, since you are wanting to discuss the merits of red.
The amount of energy being spent on ONE LOUSY SYLLOGISM says volumes for the true position of reason in this group.
In article <116540@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes: [Interchange on Hoban deleted]  >This post of mine also illustrates that I am not simply a reactionary >who hates any book which doesn't go out of its way to avoid upsetting >religionists.   Only those you haven't actually read?  Sorry, but the irony remains.  >I reiterate for the nth time also that I don't agree with K's fatwa,  >nor do I support censorship. My point in the original thread has been  >to show why Rushdie is not particularly due sympathy by those who hold  >their religion in high esteem and don't enjoy seeing things which slander >it (like the story of the Satanic Verses (as opposed to the Rushdie's >_TSV_)) played with for amusement.  So although you don't agree with the fatwa, and apparently don't think Rushdie should be killed for his book, yet you think he is not due sympathy for being being under this threat.  Furthermore you base this reaction solely on the fact that he wrote about a particular well-known story which -- if true -- might reflect poorly on the absolute truth of your religion.  Yet, this opinion is formed without recourse to actually looking to see how the story is used in context, accepting at face value the widespread propaganda on just what this book contains and what the author's motivations are.  And then you come forward and recommend another book which touches on (presumably "plays with") religious/historical material because you find its overall presentation neutral!
keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:  >mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:  >>>Perhaps we shouldn't imprision people if we could watch them closely >>>instead.  The cost would probably be similar, especially if we just >>>implanted some sort of electronic device. >>Why wait until they commit the crime?  Why not implant such devices in >>potential criminals like Communists and atheists?  >Sorry, I don't follow your reasoning.  You are proposing to punish people >*before* they commit a crime?  What justification do you have for this?  No, Mathew is proposing a public defence mechanism, not treating the electronic device as an impropriety on the wearer. What he is saying is that the next step beyond what you propose is the permanent bugging of potential criminals.  This may not, on the surface, sound like a bad thing, but who defines what a potential criminal is? If the government of the day decides that being a member of an opposition party makes you a potential criminal then openly defying the government becomes a lethal practice, this is not conducive to a free society.  Mathew is saying that implanting electronic surveillance devices upon people is an impropriety upon that person, regardless of what type of crime or what chance of recidivism there is. Basically you see the criminal justice system as a punishment for the offender and possibly, therefore, a deterrant to future offenders. Mathew sees it, most probably, as a means of rehabilitation for the offender. So he was being cynical at you, okay?
In article 21627@ousrvr.oulu.fi, kempmp@phoenix.oulu.fi (Petri Pihko) writes: |>Dan Schaertel,,, (dps@nasa.kodak.com) wrote: |> |> |>I love god just as much as she loves me. If she wants to seduce me, |>she'll know what to do.  |>  But if He/She did you would probably consider it rape.    |>: Simple logic arguments are folly.  If you read the Bible you will see |>: that Jesus made fools of those who tried to trick him with "logic". |>: Our ability to reason is just a spec of creation.  Yet some think it is |>: the ultimate.  If you rely simply on your reason then you will never |>: know more than you do now.  |> |>Your argument is of the type "you'll know once you try". |>Yet there are many atheists who have sincerely tried, and believed |>for many years, but were eventually honest enough to admit that  |>they had lived in a virtual reality. |>  Obviously there are many Christians who have tried and do believe. So .. ?  |>: To learn you must accept that which you don't know. |> |>What does this mean? To learn you must accept that you don't know  |>something, right-o. But to learn you must _accept_ something I don't |>know, why? This is not the way I prefer to learn. It is unwise to |>merely swallow everything you read. Suppose I write a book telling |>how the Great Invisible Pink Unicorn (tm) has helped me in my |>daily problems, would you accept this, since you can't know whether |>it is true or not? |>  No one asks you to swallow everything, in fact Jesus warns against it.   But let me ask you a question.  Do you beleive what you learn in history class, or for that matter anything in school.  I mean it's just what other people have told you and you don't want to swallow what others say. right ... ?  The life , death, and resurection of Christ is documented historical fact.  As much as anything else you learn.  How do you choose what to believe and what not to? I could argue that George Washington is a myth.  He never lived because I don't have any proof except what I am told.   However all the major events of the life of Jesus Christ were fortold hundreds of years before him.  Neat trick uh?