waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In <1993Apr20.004119.6119@cnsvax.uwec.edu> nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye)  writes:  >[reply to cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)] >  >>If morals come from what is societally accepted, why follow that? What >>right do we have to expect others to follow our notion of societally >>mandated morality?  Pardon the extremism, but couldn't I murder your >>"brother" and say that I was exercising my rights as I saw them, was >>doing what felt good, didn't want anyone forcing their morality on me, >>or I don't follow your "morality" ? >  >I believe that morality is subjective.  Each person is entitled to his >own moral attitudes.  Mine are not a priori more correct than someone >elses.  This does not mean however that I must judge another on the >basis of his rather than my moral standards.  While he is entitled to >believe what his own moral sense tells him, the rest of society is >entitled to pass laws spelling out punishments for behavior that is >offensive to the majority.  Why? How? Might makes right? How can they force their morality on me? Why  can't I do what I want? Who are they to decide? What if I disagree?  >  >Most criminals do not see their behavior as moral.  The may realize that >it is immoral and not care.  They are thus not following their own moral >system but being immoral.  Good point, but it is being immoral in our opinion.  We don't let them choose, we make the decision that their actions are wrong for them.    For someone to lay claim to an alternative >moral system, he must be sincere in his belief in it and it must be >internally consistent.  Some sociopaths lack an innate moral sense  I admit to lean toward the idea of an innate moral sense, but have little basis for it as of yet.  How far can such a concept be extended?   and >thus may be incapable of behaving morally.  While someone like Hitler >may have believed that his actions were moral, we may judge him immoral >by our standards.  Do you mean that we could say it would be wrong for us to do such a thing but  not him.  After all, he was behaving morally in his own eyes and doing what he chose.  On what basis do we condemn other societies besides, here's the buzz  words, on the idea that there are some actions wrong for all humans in all  societies?    Holding that morality is subjective does not mean >that we must excuse the murderer.  Why not? Do we have to be objective suddenly? >  >David Nye (nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu).  Midelfort Clinic, Eau Claire WI >This is patently absurd; but whoever wishes to become a philosopher >must learn not to be frightened by absurdities. -- Bertrand Russell  MAC -- ****************************************************************                                                     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 <1993Apr5.023044.19580@ultb.isc.rit.edu) snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes: ) )That's your mistake.  It would be better for the children if the mother )raised the child. ) )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. )Compare that with how homos are raised.  Do a study and you will get my )point. ) )But in no way do you have a claim that it would be better if the men )stayed home and raised the child.  That is something false made up by )feminists that seek a status above men.  You do not recognize the fact )that men and women have natural differences.  Not just physically, but )mentally also. ) [...] )Your logic.  I didn't say americans were the cause of worlds problems, I )said atheists. ) [...] )Becuase they have no code of ethics to follow, which means that atheists )can do whatever they want which they feel is right.  Something totally )based on their feelings and those feelings cloud their rational )thinking. ) [...] )Yeah.  I didn't say that all atheists are bad, but that they could be )bad or good, with nothing to define bad or good. )    Awright!  Bobby's back, in all of his shit-for-brains glory.  Just   when I thought he'd turned the corner of progress, his Thorazine   prescription runs out.      I'd put him in my kill file, but man, this is good stuff.  I wish   I had his staying power.    Fortunately, I learned not to take him too seriously long,long,long   ago.  /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\   Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM   They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away, and sank Manhattan out at sea.
werdna@cco.caltech.edu (Andrew Tong) writes: >mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes: > >>Question 2: This attitude god character seems awfully egotistical >>and proud.  But Christianity tells people to be humble.  What's the deal? > >Well, God pretty much has a right to be "egotistical and proud."  I >mean, he created _you_, doesn't he have the right to be proud of such >a job? > >Of course, people don't have much of a right to be proud.  What have >they accomplished that can match God's accomplishments, anyways?  How >do their abilities compare with those of God's.  We're an "imbecile >worm of the earth," to quote Pascal.  Grumblegrumble...     >If you were God, and you created a universe, wouldn't you be just a >little irked if some self-organizing cell globules on a tiny planet >started thinking they were as great and awesome as you?  unfortunately the logic falls apart quick: all-perfect > insulted or threatened by the actions of a lesser creature > actually by offspring > ???????????????????  How/why shuold any all-powerful all-perfect feel either proud or offended? Anything capable of being aware of the relationship of every aspect of every  particle in the universe during every moment of time simultaneously should be able to understand the cause of every action of every 'cell globule' on each tniy planet...  >Well, actually, now that I think of it, it seems kinda odd that God >would care at all about the Earth.  OK, so it was a bad example. But >the amazing fact is that He does care, apparently, and that he was >willing to make some grand sacrifices to ensure our happiness.  "All-powerful, Owner Of Everything in the Universe Makes Great Sacrifices" makes a great headline but it doesn't make any sense.  What did he sacrifice?  Where did it go that he couldn't get it back?  If he gave something up, who'd he give it up to?  -chris
student writes:  >Somewhere, roger colin shouse writes about "radical gay dogma."  Somewhere else >he claims not to claim to have a claim to knowing those he doesn't know. >There are at least twenty instances of this kind of muddleheaded fourth- >reich-sophistique shit in his postings.  Maybe more.  In fact I'm not sure >the instances could be counted, because they reproduce like a virus the more >you consider his words. >	My question is this: what is the best response to weasels like >shouse and Stan Krieger?  Possibilities: >	(a) study them dispassionately and figure out how they work, then >(1) remember what you've learned so as to combat them when they or their clones >get into office >(2) contribute your insights to your favorite abnormal psych ward >	(b) learn to overcome your repugnance for serial murder  This posting is totally uncalled for in rec.scouting.  The point has been raised and has been answered.  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.  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).  What else is there to possibly discuss on rec.scouting on this issue? Nobody, including BSA, is denying anybody the right to live and/or worship as they please or don't please,  but it doesn't mean that BSA is the big bad wolf for adhering to the recognized, positive, religious and moral standards on which our society has been established and on which it should continue to be based.
In article <65934@mimsy.umd.edu> mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:   > >Nanci Ann Miller writes: > ]The "corrupted over and over" theory is pretty weak.  Comparison of the ]current hebrew text with old versions and translations shows that the text ]has in fact changed very little over a space of some two millennia.  This ]shouldn't be all that suprising; people who believe in a text in this manner ]are likely to makes some pains to make good copies.   Tell it to King James, mate.   ]C. Wingate        + "The peace of God, it is no peace, ]                  +    but strife closed in the sod. ]mangoe@cs.umd.edu +  Yet, brothers, pray for but one thing: ]tove!mangoe       +    the marv'lous peace of God."
Tony Lezard <tony@mantis.co.uk> writes:  >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? As far as I can tell, strong atheists are far >outnumbered on alt.atheism by weak atheists.  At the cost of repudiating the FAQ, I think too much is made of the strong vs weak atheism issue, although in the context of alt.atheism, where we're continually attacked on the basis that strong atheists "believe" in the non-existence of god, I think the separation is a valid one.  To cover my arse, what I'm trying to say is that there is an infinitely grey area between weak and strong, as well as between strong and the unattainable mathematical atheism (I wish!).  Whereas I _logically_ can only support the weak atheist position, in effect I am a strong atheist (and wish I could be a mathematical one).  To justify my strong atheist position I believe I need only show that the evidence presented in favour of any of the gods under scrutiny is faulty.  If I read the FAQ correctly, no argument for the existence of god (generic, as represented by mainstream theologians) has ever been found to be unassailable.  To me this is adequate evidence that the _real_god_ is undefinable (or at least no definition has yet been found to be watertight), which in turn I accept as sufficient to base a disbelief in each and every conceivable god.  I'm a little fuzzy on the edges, though, so opinions are welcome (but perhaps we should change the thread subject).
In <lsran6INN14a@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric  Marsh) writes:  >In article <C5HqxJ.JDG@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> lis450bw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (lis450  Student) writes: >>Hmmmm.  Define objective morality.  Well, depends upon who you talk to. >>Some say it means you can't have your hair over your ears, and others say >>it means Stryper is acceptable.  _I_ would say that general principles >>of objective morality would be listed in one or two places.  >>Ten Commandments  >>Sayings of Jesus  >>the first depends on whether you trust the Bible,   >>the second depends on both whether you think Jesus is God, and whether >>  you think we have accurate copies of the NT.  >Gong!  >Take a moment and look at what you just wrote. First you defined >an "objective" morality and then you qualified this "objective" morality >with subjective justifications. Do you see the error in this?  >Sorry, you have just disqualified yourself, but please play again.  >>MAC >>  >eric  Huh?  Please explain.  Is there a problem because I based my morality on  something that COULD be wrong?  Gosh, there's a heck of a lot of stuff that I  believe that COULD be wrong, and that comes from sources that COULD be wrong.  What do you base your belief on atheism on?  Your knowledge and reasoning?  COuldn't that be wrong?  MAC -- ****************************************************************                                                     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
Robert Beauchaine (bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM) wrote: : >  :   Precisely my position.    :   As a newbie, I tried the point-by-point approach to debate with :   these types.  It wasted both my time and my lifespan.  Ignoring :   them is not an option, since they don't go away, and doing so :   would leave one with large stretches of complete anonymity in this :   group.  Bob,  I've posted here long enough to see your name a few times, but I can't recall any point by point approach to anything you've contributed. But I'm old (probably senile) and I may have just forgotten, if you could post an example of your invincible logic, it might jog my memory.
In article <C5qt5p.Mvo@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:  >In article <115694@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:  >>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.   >From the point ov view of an atheist, I see you claim Khomeini wasn't >practicing true Islam.  But I'm sure that he would have said the same about >you.  How am I, a member of neither group, supposed to be able to tell which >one of you two is really a true Muslim?  This is a very good point. I have already made the clear claim that Khomeini advocates views which are in contradition with the Qur'an and have given my arguments for this. This is something that can be checked by anyone sufficiently interested. Khomeini, being dead, really can't respond, but another poster who supports Khomeini has responded with what is clearly obfuscationist sophistry. This should be quite clear to atheists as they are less susceptible to religionist modes of obfuscationism.   So, to answer your question, the only way you can judge is by learning  more about Islam, that is by reading the Qur'an and understanding it's  basic principles. Once one has done this it is relatively easy to see  who is following the principles of Islam and who is acting in a way at  odds with Islam. Khomeini by attributing a superhuman status to twelve  muslim historical leaders is at variance with one of basic principles  of Islam, which is that no human being is metaphysically different than  any other human being and in no sense any closer to God in metaphysical  nature.
In article <1ql8mdINN674@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) 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?  	We only need to ask the question: what did the founding fathers  consider cruel and unusual punishment?  	Hanging? Hanging there slowing being strangled would be very  painful, both physically and psychologicall, I imagine.  	Firing squad ? [ note: not a clean way to die back in those  days ], etc.   	All would be considered cruel under your definition. 	All were allowed under the constitution by the founding fathers.  ---           " Whatever promises that have been made can than be broken. "
In article <1qlef4INN8dn@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes: |> 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?  You don't think these are little things because with twenty-twenty hindsight, you know what they led to.
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?
acooper@mac.cc.macalstr.edu wrote:   : I wonder how many atheists out there care to speculate on the face of : the world  if atheists were the majority rather than the minority group : of the population.   I've been thinking about this every now and then since I cut my ties with Christianity. It is surprising to note that a large majority of people, at least in Finland, seem to be apatheists - even though 90 % of the population are members of the Lutheran Church of Finland, religious people are actually a minority.   Could it be possible that many people believe in god "just in case"? It seems people do not want to seek the truth; they fall prey to Pascal's Wager or other poor arguments. A small minority of those who do believe reads the Bible regularly. The majority doesn't care - it believes, but doesn't know what or how.   People don't usually allow their beliefs to change their lifestyle, they only want to keep the virtual gate open. A Christian would say that they are not "born in the Spirit", but this does not disturb them. Religion is not something to think about.   I'm afraid a society with a true atheist majority is an impossible dream. Religions have a strong appeal to people, nevertheless -  a promise of life after death is something humans eagerly listen to. Coupled with threats of eternal torture and the idea that our morality is under constant scrutiny of some cosmic cop, too many people take the poison with a smile. Or just pretend to swallow (and unconsciously hope god wouldn't notice ;-) )  : Also, how many atheists out there would actually take the stance and accor a : higher value to their way of thinking over the theistic way of thinking.  The : typical selfish argument would be that both lines of thinking evolved from the : same inherent motivation, so one is not, intrinsically, different from the : other, qualitatively.  But then again a measuring stick must be drawn : somewhere, and if we cannot assign value to a system of beliefs at its core, : than the only other alternative is to apply it to its periphery; ie, how it : expresses its own selfishness.  If logic and reason are valued, then I would claim that atheistic thinking is of higher value than the theistic exposition. Theists make unnecessary assumptions they believe in - I've yet to see good reasons to believe in gods, or to take a leap of faith at all. A revelation would do.  However, why do we value logic and reasoning? This questions bears some resemblance to a long-disputed problem in science: why mathematics works? Strong deep structuralists, like Atkins, have proposed that perhaps, after all, everything _is_ mathematics.   Is usefulness any criterion?  Petri
In article <1993Apr5.023044.19580@ultb.isc.rit.edu> snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:  > 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. > Compare that with how homos are raised.  Do a study and you will get my > point.  Oh, Bobby. You're priceless. Did I ever tell you that?  My policy with Bobby's posts, should anyone give a damn, is to flick through the thread at high speed, searching for posts of Bobby's which have generated a whole pile of followups, then go in and extract the hilarious quote inevitably present for .sig purposes. Works for me.  For the guy who said he's just arrived, and asked whether Bobby's for real, you betcha. Welcome to alt.atheism, and rest assured that it gets worse. I have a few pearls of wisdom from Bobby which I reproduce below. Is anyone (Keith?) keeping a big file of such stuff?       "In Allah's infinite wisdom, the universe was created from nothing,         just by saying "Be", and it became. Therefore Allah exists."            --- Bobby Mozumder proving the existence of Allah, #1       "Wait. You just said that humans are rarely reasonable. Doesn't that       contradict atheism, where everything is explained through logic and       reason? This is THE contradiction in atheism that proves it false."            --- Bobby Mozumder proving the existence of Allah, #2                "Plus, to the believer, it would be contradictory                     to the Quran for Allah not to exist."            --- Bobby Mozumder proving the existence of Allah, #3  and now     "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. Compare     that with how homos are raised.  Do a study and you will get my point."          -- Bobby Mozumder being Islamically Rigorous on alt.atheism  Mmmmm. Quality *and* quantity from the New Voice of Islam (pbuh).  Cheers  Simon
Bill Ray (ray@engr.LaTech.edu) 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.  Just like history is written by the `winners' and not the `losers.' From what I've seen of religions, a religion is just a cult that was so vile and corrupt it was able to exert it's doctrine using political and military measures.  Perhaps if Koresh withstood the onslaught for another couple of months he would have started  attracting more converts due to his `strength,' hence becoming a full religion and not just a cult.