waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <C5prv8.5nI@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) wrote: > 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" ?  Good statement! Should we apply empirical measurements to define exact social morals? Should morals be based on social rules? On ancient religious doctrines? It seems there will *NEVER* be a common and single denominator for defining morals, and as such defining absolute and objective morals is doomed to fail as long as humans have  this incredible talent of creative thinking.  Cheers, Kent
In article <1993Apr3.195642.25261@njitgw.njit.edu>, dmu5391@hertz.njit.edu (David Utidjian Eng.Sci.) writes... >In article <31MAR199321091163@juliet.caltech.edu> lmh@juliet.caltech.edu (Henling, Lawrence M.) writes: >	For a complete description of what is, and is not atheism >or agnosticism see the FAQ for alt.atheism in alt.answers... I think. >utidjian@remarque.berkeley.edu   I apologize for posting this. I thought it was only going to talk.origins. I also took my definitions from a 1938 Websters.  Nonetheless, the apparent past arguments over these words imply that like 'bimonthly' and 'biweekly' they have no commonly accepted definitions and should be used with care.
In article <C5qt5p.Mvo@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) wrote: >  > 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?  Fred Rice answered this already in an early posting: "The problem with your argument is that you do not _know_ who is a _real_ believer and who may be "faking it".  This is something known only by the person him/herself (and God).  Your assumption that anyone who _claims_ to be a "believer" _is_ a "believer" is not necessarily true."  In other words it seems that nobody could define who is a true and false Muslim. We are back to square one, Khomeini and Hussein are  still innocent and can't be defined as evil or good Islamic  worshippers.  Cheers, Kent
In article <1r39kh$itp@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) says: > [ . . .] >Specifically, I'd like to know what relativism concludes when two >people grotesquely disagree.  Is it: > >(a) Both are right > >(b) One of them is wrong, and sometimes (though perhaps rarely) we have a >    pretty good idea who it is > >(c) One of them is wrong, but we never have any information as to who, so >    we make our best guess if we really must make a decision. > >(d) The idea of a "right" moral judgement is meaningless (implying that >     whether peace is better than war, e.g., is a meaningless question, >     and need not be discussed for it has no correct answer) > >(e) Something else.  A short, positive assertion would be nice. > >As I hope you can tell, (b) and (c) are actually predicated on >the assumption that values are real  - so statements like these >_can't_ consistently derive from the relativist assumption that values >aren't part of objective reality.  I am a relativist who would like to answer your question, but the way you phrase the question makes it unanswerable.  The concepts of "right" and "wrong" (or "correct/incorrect" or "true/false") belong to the domain of epistemological rather than moral questions.  It makes no sense to ask if a moral position is right or wrong, although it is legitimate to ask if it is good (or better than another position).  Let me illustrate this point by looking at the psychological derivatives of epistemology and ethics:  perception and motivation, respectively. One can certainly ask if a percept is "right" (correct, true, veridical) or "wrong" (incorrect, false, illusory).  But it makes little sense to ask if a motive is true or false.  On the other hand, it is strange to ask whether a percept is morally good or evil, but one can certainly ask that question about motives.  Therefore, your suggested answers (a)-(c) simply can't be considered: they assume you can judge the correctness of a moral judgment.  Now the problem with (d) is that it is double-barrelled:  I agree with the first part (that the "rightness" of a moral position is a meaningless question), for the reasons stated above.  But that is irrelevant to the alleged implication (not an implication at all) that one cannot feel peace is better than war.  I certainly can make value judgments (bad, better, best) without asserting the "correctness" of the position.  Sorry for the lengthy dismissal of (a)-(d).  My short (e) answer is that when two individuals grotesquely disagree on a moral issue, neither is right (correct) or wrong (incorrect).  They simply hold different moral values (feelings).
In article <1993Apr6.021635.20958@wam.umd.edu> west@next02cville.wam.umd.edu (Stilgar) writes:  >Fine... THE ILLIAD IS THE WORD OF GOD(tm)  (disputed or not, it is) > >Dispute that.  It won't matter.  Prove me wrong.  	The Illiad contains more than one word. Ergo: it can not be the Word of God.   	But, if you will humbly agree that it is the WORDS of God, I  will conceed.  	:-D   ---          "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
In article <930419.104739.2t8.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes: >mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes: >>In article <30136@ursa.bear.com> halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) writes: >>>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.   >>  >> This deserves framing.  It really does.  "[Atoms] aren't even real." >>  >> Tell me then, those atoms we have seen with electron microscopes are >> atoms now, so what are they?  Figments of our imaginations?  The >> evidence that atoms are real is overwhelming, but I won't bother with >> most evidence at the moment. > >HA HA HA! > >Sorry, but having studied cell biology, I have to say that "I can see it >through an electron microscope, THEREFORE it is real" is a laughable >statement. > [...stuff deleted...]  Thank you.  I thought I was in the twilight zone for a moment. It still amazes me that many people with science backgrounds  still confuse the models and observables with what even they would call the real world.  -jim halat
rh> From: house@helios.usq.EDU.AU (ron house) rh> Newsgroups: alt.atheism rh> Organization: University of Southern Queensland  rh> bissda@saturn.wwc.edu (DAN LAWRENCE BISSELL) writes:  >	First I want to start right out and say that I'm a Christian.  It   rh> I _know_ I shouldn't get involved, but...   :-)  rh> [bit deleted]  >	The book says that Jesus was either a liar, or he was crazy ( a  >modern day Koresh) or he was actually who he said he was. [rest of rant deleted]  This is a standard argument for fundies.  Can you spot the falicy? The statement is arguing from the assumption that Jesus actually existed.  So far, they have not been able to offer real proof of that existance.  Most of them try it using the (very) flawed writings of Josh McDowell and others to prove it, but those writers use VERY flawed sources.  (If they are real sources at all, some are not.)  When will they ever learn to do real research, instead of believing the drivel sold in the Christian bookstores.  rh> Righto, DAN, try this one with your Cornflakes...  rh> The book says that Muhammad was either a liar, or he was rh> crazy ( a  modern day Mad Mahdi) or he was actually who he rh> said he was. Some reasons why he wouldn't be a liar are as rh> follows.  Who would  die for a lie?  Wouldn't people be able rh> to tell if he was a liar?  People  gathered around him and rh> kept doing it, many gathered from hearing or seeing  how his rh> son-in-law made the sun stand still.  Call me a fool, but I rh> believe  he did make the sun stand still.   rh> Niether was he a lunatic.  Would more than an entire nation rh> be drawn  to someone who was crazy.  Very doubtful, in fact rh> rediculous.  For example  anyone who is drawn to the Mad rh> Mahdi is obviously a fool, logical people see  this right rh> away. rh> Therefore since he wasn't a liar or a lunatic, he must have rh> been the  real thing.    Nice rebutal!
In article <madhausC5yD87.KIp@netcom.com>, madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann) writes: > healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy) writes: > >  > >Tammy "See, Maddi, I trimmed it!" Healy >  > Well, you're going to have to practice, but you're getting > the hang of it.  Soon we're going to have to give you a new > nickname.  Try these on for size: >  > Tammy "Lucky Seven" Healy > Tammy "Pass the falafel" Healy > Tammy "R Us" Healy > Tammy "Learning by Doing" Healy  The "R Us" thing is trademarked.  I don't know if Charles Lazarus is dead or alive, but I'd be careful, because with a name like Lazarus, he might rise again just to start a lawsuit.  Dean Kaflowitz
In article <1993Apr3.081052.11292@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes: >I propose >that these two trends -- greater level of general depression in society >(and other psychological problems) and greater sexual promiscuity -- are >linked, with the latter being a prime cause of the former.  I cannot >provide any evidence beyond this at this stage, but the whole thesis >seems very reasonable to me and I request that people ponder upon it. >    Damn right you can't provide any evidence for it.      Rarely are any widespread social phenomenon reducible to such a   simple premise.  If they were, psychology would be a hard science   with roughly the same mathematical soundness as physics.      Your premise may well be right.  It is much more likely, however,   that it reflects your socialization and religious background, as   well as your need to validate your religious beliefs.  Were I to   pretend to have all the answers (and I don't), I would say that the   xenophobia, guilt, and intolerance brought about by adherence to    fundamentalist religions play just as large a role in depressing   the members of our society.    Your mileage obviously varies.  /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\   Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM   They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away, and sank Manhattan out at sea.
a> In article <1qi156INNf9n@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>, tcbruno@athena.mit.edu (Tom Bruno) writes: >  ..stuff deleted... >  > Which brings me to the point of my posting.  How many people out there have  > been around alt.atheism since 1990?  I've done my damnedest to stay on top of ...more stuff deleted...  Hmm, USENET got it's collective hooks into me around 1987 or so right after I switched to engineering.  I'd say I started reading alt.atheism around 1988-89. I've probably not posted more than 50 messages in the time since then though. I'll never understand how people can find the time to write so much.  I can barely keep up as it is.
In article <C4ux99.AIC@ra.nrl.navy.mil> khan@itd.itd.nrl.navy.mil (Umar Khan) writes:  Stuff deleted   >Is there a concordance for the FAQ?  WHich translation is considered >most authoritative?  Is there an orthodox commentary for the FAQ >available?  Is there one FAQ for militant atheists and another for >moderate atheists; or, do you all read from the same FAQ?  If so, >how do you resolve differences of interpretation?  Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.............................................          I can put the same question to followers of any religion. How do you Moslems resolve differences of opinion ?? Don't tell me that there is one interpretation of the Quran. Read the soc.culture.* newsgroups. You will zillions of different interpretations.  -- Naren naren@TEKIG1.PEN.TEK.COM
In article H9r@ra.nrl.navy.mil,  khan@itd.itd.nrl.navy.mil (Umar Khan) writes: ##I strongly suggest that you look up a book called THE BIBLE, THE QURAN, AND ##SCIENCE by Maurice Baucaille, a French surgeon.  It is not comprehensive, ##but, it is well researched.  I imagine your library has it or can get it ##for you through interlibrary loan. ##    I shall try to get hold of it (when I have time to read of course :-)  ##In short, Dr Baucaille began investigating the Bible because of pre- ##ceived scientific inaccuracies and inconsistencies.  He assumed that ##some of the problems may have been caused by poor translations in by- ##gone days.  So, he read what he could find in Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic. ##What he found was that the problems didn't go away, they got worse. ##Then, he decided to see if other religions had the same problems. ##So, he picked up the Holy Qur'an (in French) and found similar prob- ##lems, but not as many.  SO, he applied the same logoic as he had ##with the Bible: he learned to read it in Arabic.  The problems he ##had found with the French version went away in Arabic.  He was unable ##to find a wealth of scientific statements in the Holy Qur'an, but, ##what he did find made sense with modern understanding.  So, he ##investigated the Traditions (the hadith) to see what they had to ##say about science.  they were filled with science problems; after ##all, they were contemporary narratives from a time which had, by ##pour standards, a primitive world view.  His conclusion was that, ##while he was impressed that what little the Holy Qur'an had to ##say about science was accurate, he was far more impressed that the ##Holy Qur'an did not contain the same rampant errors evidenced in ##the Traditions.  How would a man of 7th Century Arabia have known ##what *not to include* in the Holy Qur'an (assuming he had authored ##it)?   ##      So in short the writer (or writers) of Quran decided to stay away from science.  (if you do not open your mouth, then you don't put you foot into your mouth either).      But then if you say Quran does not talk much about science, then one can not make claims (like Bobby does) that you have great science in Quran.     Basically I want to say that *none* of the religious texts are supposed to be scientific treatises. So I am just requesting the theists to stop making such wild claims.  --- Vinayak -------------------------------------------------------                                            vinayak dutt                                    e-mail: vdp@mayo.edu               standard disclaimers apply
>snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes: > More horrible deaths resulted from atheism than anything else. >  LIST OF KILLINGS IN THE NAME OF RELIGION  1. Iran-Iraq War: 1,000,000 2. Civil War in Sudan: 1,000,000 3, Riots in India-Pakistan in 1947: 1,000,000 4. Massacares in Bangladesh in 1971: 1,000,000 5. Inquistions in America in 1500s: x million (x=??) 6. Crusades: ??  I am sure that people can add a lot more to the list. I wonder what Bobby has to say about the above.  Standard Excuses will not be accepted. -- Naren
Charley Wingate (mangoe@cs.umd.edu) wrote: :  : >> Please enlighten me.  How is omnipotence contradictory? :  : >By definition, all that can occur in the universe is governed by the rules : >of nature. Thus god cannot break them. Anything that god does must be allowed : >in the rules somewhere. Therefore, omnipotence CANNOT exist! It contradicts : >the rules of nature. :  : Obviously, an omnipotent god can change the rules.  When you say, "By definition", what exactly is being defined; certainly not omnipotence. You seem to be saying that the "rules of nature" are pre-existant somehow, that they not only define nature but actually cause it. If that's what you mean I'd like to hear your further thoughts on the question.
James J. Lippard (lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu) wrote: : Exodus 21:22-25:  :        22 And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with :           child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further :           injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may :           demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. :        23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint :           as a penalty life for life, :        24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, :        25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.  : The most straightforward interpretation of these verses is that if : men in a fight strike a woman and cause her to miscarry, the penalty : is only a fine.  If, however, the woman is injured or dies, the : *lex talionis* doctrine of "an eye for an eye" applies.  This is the : Jewish interpretation, and is supported by Jewish commentaries on : these verses. :    This is quite an embarrassment for pro-lifer Christians, so there is : of course an alternate explanation.  The alternative interprets the : word "miscarriage" to mean "premature birth"--i.e., the child is born : alive--and "further injury" to mean injury to either the woman or : the fetus.  This is not a straightforward interpretation, it is not : (so far as I know) supported by any Jewish commentaries, and it does : not appeared to be supported by any other part of the Bible.  What if any, historical reference do we have to abortion at this time?  Did the ancient Jew have appropriate reference to understand abortion? (I am truly asking, not making a point veiled as a question).  If there is  little understanding of the medical procedure we know as abortion, it is not surprising the Bible makes little reference to it, as it makes little reference to nuclear power and contamination.
In article <1993Apr15.150938.975@news.wesleyan.edu> SSAUYET@eagle.wesleyan.edu (SCOTT D. SAUYET) writes: >In <1qabe7INNaff@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu writes: > >>> Chimpanzees fight wars over land. >>  >> But chimps are almost human... >>  >> keith > >Could it be?  This is the last message from Mr. Schneider, and it's >more than three days old! > >Are these his final words?  (And how many here would find that >appropriate?)  Or is it just that finals got in the way? >    No. The christians were leary of having an atheist spokesman   (seems so clandestine, and all that), so they had him removed.  Of   course, Keith is busy explaining to his fellow captives how he   isn't really being persecuted, since (after all) they *are*   feeding him, and any resistance on his part would only be viewed   as trouble making.      I understand he did make a bit of a fuss when they tatooed "In God   We Trust" on his forehead, though.  /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\   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 <115793@bu.edu>, jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes: |> In article <1qla0g$afp@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: >|> >I hope an Islamic Bank is something other than BCCI, which >|> >ripped off so many small depositors among the Muslim >|> >community in the Uk and elsewhere.  >|> Grow up, childish propagandist.  |>  |> >BBCI was an example of an Islamically owned and operated bank - |> >what will someone bet me they weren't "real" Islamic owners and |> >operators? |>  |> An Islamic bank is a bank which operates according to the rules |> of Islam in regard to banking. This is done explicitly by the |> bank. This was not the case with BCCI.  So now you are saying that an Islamic Bank is something other than BCCI.  Would you care to explain why it was that when I said  "I hope an  Islamic Bank is something other than BCCI", you called me a childish  propagandist.
In article <116547@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes: >Yes. The Qur'an discusses this point in several ways, some of >them quite directly. For example, it says that if God _were_ >to appear them there would be no need for faith and belief as >the evidence would be definitive.  Ah! Excellent. So why doesn't she appear to me? I'm a little weak in the blind faith department. (Besides, she doesn't even really need to appear: how about, oh say, a little tip - something like "put your all on #3 in the 7:30 at the Dog Races" ... perhaps in a dream or vision.)  >>How do we know that >>Muhammed didn't just go out into the desert and smoke something?  > >Would a person who was high write so well and with such consistency?  I'm afraid I don't know arabic; I have only read translations. I wouldn't know it if it were well-written. (Consistent, though, is one thing the Quran is not.)  And have *you* read it in arabic?  Besides, some of my best writing has been done under the influence of, shall we say, consciousness altering substances.  >>And how >>do we know that the scribes he dictated the Quran to didn't screw up, or >>put in their own little verses?  > >They'd have to be very good to do so without destroying the beauty >and literary quality of text Arabic text.   Yes, so? How do we know they *weren't* very good? (Again, assuming that the Quran is beautfully written.)  >>And why can Muhammed marry more than four women,  >>when no other muslim is allowed to?  > >Muhammad did not exceed the number _after_ the revelation regulating >the number of wives a man could marry, but before it.  Ok, I retract this point. (Although I might still say that once he knew, he should have done something about it.)  >>(Although I think the biggest >>insult to Islam is that the majority of its followers would want to >>suppress a book, sight unseen, on the say-so of some "holy" guy. Not to >>mention murder the author.) > >I agree. But is it really true that this is the case?  I haven't interviewed all muslims about this; I would really like it if this were false. But I can't take it on your say-so - what are your sources?  >Another case of judging principles on the basis of those who claim >to follow them.  What other basis do we have to judge a system? Especially when we can't get a consistent picture of what Islam "really" is. Do I believe Khomeini? Do I go by the Imam of the mosque in Mecca? Or perhaps the guy in New Jersey? Or perhaps you say I should go only by the Quran. Ok, whose translation? And what about things like "And wherever you find idolators, kill them"?  -s