waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <1993Apr20.004119.6119@cnsvax.uwec.edu> nyeda@cnsvax.uwec.edu (David Nye) writes:  You asked me to look over here, but I was on my way back anyway :-)  #[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?  Your last statement.  Why?  By which authority?    #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.  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.    Why?  Your last statement.  Why are these things necessary?    And believe me, a belief in terrorism can be both sincere and frighteningly consistent.  #Some sociopaths lack an innate moral sense 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.  Holding that morality is subjective does not mean #that we must excuse the murderer.  Trouble is, this would sound just fine coming from someone like Hitler, too. (I do *not* mean any comparison or offence, David.)   Try substituting  the social minority of your choice for 'sociopath', 'Hitler',  and 'murderer'.  No logical difference.  Someone like you, vs. someone like Hitler. Zero sum.
-*---- I wrote: >> The diaries of the followers of the Maharishi, formerly of >> Oregon, are historical evidence.    In article <2944756297.1.p00261@psilink.com> "Robert Knowles" <p00261@psilink.com> writes: > Are you confusing Bhagwan Rajneesh (sp?) with the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi > here by any chance?  I believe that Maharishi is titular.  (Someone please correct me if  I am wrong.)  Thus, Maharishi Rajneesh is a different person from Maharishi Mahesh, but they are both Maharishis.
In article <1qkq9t$66n@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:  >I'll take a wild guess and say Freedom is objectively valuable.  I base >this on the assumption that if everyone in the world were deprived utterly >of their freedom (so that their every act was contrary to their volition), >almost all would want to complain.  Therefore I take it that to assert or >believe that "Freedom is not very valuable", when almost everyone can see >that it is, is every bit as absurd as to assert "it is not raining" on >a rainy day.  I take this to be a candidate for an objective value, and it >it is a necessary condition for objective morality that objective values >such as this exist.  	You have only shown that a vast majority ( if not all ) would agree to this. However, there is nothing against a subjective majority.  	In any event, I must challenge your assertion. I know many  societies- heck, many US citizens- willing to trade freedom for "security".   ---           " Whatever promises that have been made can than be broken. "
In article <C5u7Bq.J43@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:  >The examples he gave were quarks and continental plates.  Are there   Sounds like more of the same.  Gods were used to describe almost everything in the past.  As we come to understand the underpinnings of more and more, the less we credit to a god.  Now, the not-so-well understood elements (at least by the author) includes quarks and tectonic drift.  I guess that's better than describing the perceived patterns of stars in the sky as heroes being immortalized by the gods.  Kinda sounds like old-earth creation--It seems that life did, indeed, evolve from a common ancestor.  What caused that initial common ancestor?  Are we going to hear another debate on causeless events? ;-)  >explanations of science or parts of theories that are not measurable in and of >themselves, or can everything be quantified, measured, tested, etc.?   > >MAC >                                                    Michael A. Cobb
Robert Singleton (bobs@thnext.mit.edu) wrote:  : > Sure it isn't mutually exclusive, but it lends weight to (i.e. increases : > notional running estimates of the posterior probability of) the  : > atheist's pitch in the partition, and thus necessarily reduces the same  : > quantity in the theist's pitch. This is because the `divine component'  : > falls prey to Ockham's Razor, the phenomenon being satisfactorily  :                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ : > explained without it, and there being no independent evidence of any  :   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ : > such component. More detail in the next post. : >   Occam's Razor is not a law of nature, it is way of analyzing an argument, even so, it interesting how often it's cited here and to what end.  It seems odd that religion is simultaneously condemned as being primitive, simple-minded and unscientific, anti-intellectual and childish, and yet again condemned as being too complex (Occam's razor), the scientific explanation of things being much more straightforeward and, apparently, simpler. Which is it to be - which is the "non-essential", and how do you know? Considering that even scientists don't fully comprehend science due to its complexity and diversity. Maybe William of Occam has performed a lobotomy, kept the frontal lobe and thrown everything else away ...  This is all very confusing, I'm sure one of you will straighten me out tough.
In article <16BA1E927.DRPORTER@SUVM.SYR.EDU>, DRPORTER@SUVM.SYR.EDU (Brad Porter) writes: > >   Science is wonderful at answering most of our questions.  I'm not the type >to question scientific findings very often, but...  Personally, I find the >theory of evolution to be unfathomable.  Could humans, a highly evolved, >complex organism that thinks, learns, and develops truly be an organism >that resulted from random genetic mutations and natural selection?  [...stuff deleted...]  Computers are an excellent example...of evolution without "a" creator. We did not "create" computers.  We did not create the sand that goes into the silicon that goes into the integrated circuits that go into processor board.  We took these things and put them together in an interesting way. Just like plants "create" oxygen using light through  photosynthesis.  It's a much bigger leap to talk about something that created "everything" from nothing.  I find it unfathomable to resort to believing in a creator when a much simpler alternative exists: we simply are incapable of understanding our beginnings -- if there even were beginnings at all.  And that's ok with me.  The present keeps me perfectly busy.
In article <115621@bu.edu>, jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes: > In article <1993Apr15.135650.28926@st-andrews.ac.uk> nrp@st-andrews.ac.uk (Norman R. Paterson) writes: >  >>I don't think you're right about Germany.  My daughter was born there and >>I don't think she has any German rights eg to vote or live there (beyond the >>rights of all EC citizens).  She is a British citizen by virtue of >>her parentage, but that's not "full" citizenship.  For example, I don't think >>her children could be British by virtue of her in the same way. >  > I am fairly sure that she could obtain citizenship by making an > application for it. It might require immigration to Germany, but > I am almost certain that once applied for citizenship is inevitable > in this case.  Nope, Germany has extremely restrictive citizenship laws.  The  ethnic Germans who have lived in Russia for over 100 years  automatically become citizens if they move to Germany, but the Turks who are now in their third generation in Germany can't. It's not a very good example to show citizenship without descent.  Karl  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | "Lastly, I come to China in the hope      | "All you touch and all you see  | | of fulfilling a lifelong ambition -       | Is all your life will ever be." | | dropping acid on the Great Wall."  --Duke |                 --Pink Floyd    | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |         A Lie is still a Lie even if 3.8 billion people believe it.         |
Yesterday, I got the chance to hear Kurt Vonnegut speak at the University of New Hampshire. Vonnegut succeeded Isaac Asimov as the  (honorary?) head of the American Humanist Association. (Vonnegut is an atheist, and so was Asimov) Before Asimov's funeral, Vonnegut stood up and said about Asimov, "He's in heaven now," which ignited uproarious  laughter in the room. (from the people he was speaking to around the time of the funeral)  	 "It's the funniest thing I could have possibly said to a room full of humanists," Vonnegut said at yesterday's lecture.            If Vonnegut comes to speak at your university, I highly recommend going to see him even if you've never read any of his novels. In my opinion, he's the greatest living humorist. (greatest living humanist humorist as well)      Peace,
Your posting provoked me into checking my save file for memorable posts. The first I captured was by Ken Arromdee on 19 Feb 1990, on the subject "Re: atheist too?". That was article #473 here; your question was article #53766, which is an average of about 48 articles a day for the last three years. As others have noted, the current posting rate is such that my kill file is depressing large...... Among the posting I saved in the early days were articles from the following notables:  >From: loren@sunlight.llnl.gov (Loren Petrich) >From: jchrist@nazareth.israel.rel (Jesus Christ of Nazareth) >From: mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) >From: perry@apollo.HP.COM (Jim Perry) >From: lippard@uavax0.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) >From: minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky)  An interesting bunch.... I wonder where #2 is?
In article <C5HIEw.7s1@portal.hq.videocart.com> dfuller@portal.hq.videocart.com (Dave Fuller) writes: > >  Hello. I just started reading this group today, and I think I am going >to be a large participant in its daily postings. I liked the section of >the FAQ about constructing logical arguments - well done. I am an atheist, >but I do not try to turn other people into atheists. I only try to figure >why people believe the way they do - I don't much care if they have a  >different view than I do. When it comes down to it . . . I could be wrong. >I am willing to admit the possibility - something religious followers  >dont seem to have the capability to do. > >  Happy to be aboard ! > >Dave Fuller >dfuller@portal.hq.videocart.com  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
In article <1993Apr5.091139.823@batman.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes: >In article <16BA5DA01.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de>, I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes: >> But could you give a definition of free will? Especially in the >> presence of an omniscient being?  >"Will" is "self-determination".  In other words, God created conscious >beings who have the ability to choose between moral choices independently >of God.  All "will", therefore, is "free will".  So these hypothetical conscious beings can ignore any influences of their circumstances (their genetics, their environment, their experiences) which are not all self-determined?  (Of course, the idea of Hell makes the idea of "free will" dubious. On the other hand, the idea of Hell is not a very powerful idea.  	"A Parable for You  	"There was once our main character who blah blah blah. 	"One day, a thug pointed a mean looking gun at OMC, and said, 'Do what I say, or I'm blasting you to hell.' 	"OMC thought, 'If I believe this thug, and follow the instructions that will be given, I'll avoid getting blasted to hell.  On the other hand, if I believe this thug, and do not follow the instructions that will be given, I'll get blasted to hell.  Hmm... the more attractive choice is obvious, I'll follow the instructions.'  Now, OMC found the choice obvious because everything OMC had learned about getting blasted to hell made it appear very undesirable. 	"But then OMC noticed that the thug's gun wasn't a real gun.  The thug's threats were make believe. 	"So OMC ignored the thug and resumed blah blah blah.")
In article <ePVk2B3w165w@mantis.co.uk> Tony Lezard <tony@mantis.co.uk> writes:   (Deletion) >> In other words, if there were gods, they would hardly make sense, and >> it is possible to explain the phenomenon of religion without gods. >> >> The concept is useless, and I don't have to introduce new assumptions >> in order to show that. > >Yes I fully agree with that, but is it "I don't believe gods exist", or >"I believe no gods exist"? As MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka) >pointed out, it all hinges on what you take the word "believe" to mean. >   For me, it is a "I believe no gods exist" and a "I don't believe gods exist".   In other words, I think that statements like gods are or somehow interfere with this world are false or meaningless. In Ontology, one can fairly conclude that when "A exist" is meaningless A does not exist. Under the Pragmatic definition of truth, "A exists" is meaningless makes A exist even logically false.   A problem with such statements is that one can't disprove a subjective god by definition, and there might be cases where a subjective god would even make sense. The trouble with most god definitions is that they include some form of objective existence with the consequence of the gods affecting all. Believers derive from it a right to interfere with the life of others.     (Deletion) > >Should the FAQ be clarified to try to pin down this notion of "belief"? >Can it? >
tgk@cs.toronto.edu (Todd Kelley) writes:  >Faith and dogma are irrational.  The faith and dogma part of any religion >are responsible for the irrationality of the individuals.  I disagree.  In the end, the *individual* is responsible for his/her own irrationality.  The individual's belief in some dogmatic religion is a  symptom of that irrationality.  >Have you noticed that philosophers tend to be atheists?  Atheists and agnostics, I would imagine, but yes, that was my point.  An atheist would theoretically be just as ill-equipped to study the philosophy of religion as a Christian, and yet there is a persistence of atheists among the ranks of philosophers.  Therefore, the conflict between one's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) and the ability to be a philosopher must not be as great as you assert.  The fact that most philosophers may be non-religious was a secondary point.   >Science, (as would be practiced by atheists) in contrast, has a >BUILT IN defence against faith and dogma.  As opposed to science practiced by theists?  Be careful here.  Science does have a built-in defence against faith and dogma: skepticism.  Unfortunately, it is not foolproof.  There is that  wonderful little creature known as the "theory."  Many of us believe in the theory of evolution.  We have no absolute proof that this  theory is true, so why do we believe it?  Because it "makes more  sense than...?"  There is quite a bit of faith involved here.   >A scientist holds sacred the idea that beliefs should change to >suit whatever is the best information available at the time, AND, >*AND*, ****AND***, a scientist understands that any current beliefs >are deficient in some way.  Well, not ALL current beliefs are deficient, but basically I agree.   >Can you see the difference?  Science views beliefs as being flawed, >and new information can be obtained to improve them.  Ideally, this is true.  In reality, though, you have to acknowledge that scientists are human.  Scientists have egos and biases.  Some scientists assume a particular theory is true, refuse to admit the flaws in that theory because of ego problems or whatever, and proceed to spend their time and money trying to come up with absolute proof  for the theory.  Remember cold fusion?   >>By the way, I wasn't aware mass suicide >>was a problem.  Waco and Jonestown were isolated incidents.   >>Mass suicides are far from common. > >Clinton and the FBI would love for you to convince them of this. >It would save the US taxpayer a lot of money if you could.  Not really.  I agree that we spent far too much money on the Waco crisis ($7,500,000 I believe), especially considering the outcome. My point was that mass suicides in the U.S. are rare (Jonestown was in Guyana, incidentally, although we footed the bill for the clean-up), and the U.S. has far more important issues to address.  Compare the number of U.S. citizens who have died in mass suicides with, say, the number of U.S. soldiers who died during one week of the Vietnam War and you will see my point.
In article <1993Apr5.095148.5730@sei.cmu.edu> dpw@sei.cmu.edu (David Wood) writes:  >2. If you must respond to one of his articles, include within it >something similar to the following: > >    "Please answer the questions posed to you in the Charley Challenges."  	Agreed.  --          "Satan and the Angels do not have freewill.           They do what god tells them to do. "
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.  I pondered it for all of ten seconds when I realised that since we don't have any reliable statistics for sexual promiscuity, and since the whole issue of "depression" isn't at all well  defined for earlier centuries, you are probably talking crap.  Of course, you could pull a Mozumder on us, and say that people who are having sex outside marriage are *defined* to be depressed.  I can't say I'd ever noticed, myself.
dace@shrike.und.ac.za (Roy Dace) writes:  >Keith Allan Schneider (keith@cco.caltech.edu) wrote:  >Some soldiers are dependent on religion, for a number of purposes. >And some are no doubt dependent on cocaine, yet I don't see the military paying >for coca fields.  While religion certainly has some benefits in a combat situation, what are the benefits of cocaine?
In article <16BB7B468.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes: #In article <1r0fpv$p11@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> #frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes: #  #(Deletion) #>#      Point: Morals are, in essence, personal opinions. Usually #>#(ideally) well-founded, motivated such, but nonetheless personal. The #>#fact that a real large lot of people agree on some moral question, #>#sometimes even for the same reason, does not make morals objective; it #>#makes humans somewhat alike in their opinions on that moral question, #>#which can be good for the evolution of a social species. #> #>And if a "real large lot" (nice phrase) of people agree that there is a #>football on a desk, I'm supposed to see a logical difference between the two? #>Perhaps you can explain the difference to me, since you seem to see it #>so clearly. #> #(rest deleted) #  #That's a fallacy, and it is not the first time it is pointed out.  It's not a fallacy - note the IF.   IF a supermajority of disinterested people  agree on a fundamantal value (we're not doing ethics YET Benedikt), then what  is the difference between that and those people agreeing on a trivial observation?  #For one, you have never given a set of morals people agree upon. Unlike #a football. Further, you conveniently ignore here that there are #many who would not agree on tghe morality of something. The analogy #does not hold.  I have, however, given an example of a VALUE people agree on, and explained why.  People will agree that their freedom is valuable.  I have also stated that such a value is a necessary condition for doing objective ethics - the IF assertion above.  And that is what I'm talking about, there isn't a point in talking about ethics if this can't be agreed.  #One can expect sufficiently many people to agree on its being a football, #while YOU have to give the evidence that only vanishing number disagrees #with a set of morals YOU have to give.  I'm not doing morals (ethics) if we can't get past values.  As I say, the only cogent objection to my 'freedom' example is that maybe people aren't talking about the same thing when they answer that it is valuable. Maybe not, and I want to think about this some, especially the implications of its being true.  #Further, the above is evidence, not proof. Proof would evolve out of testing #your theory of absolute morals against competing theories.  Garbage.  That's not proof either.  #The above is one of the arguments you reiterate while you never answer #the objections. Evidence that you are a preacher.  Name that fallacy.
In article <1993Apr14.213356.22176@ultb.isc.rit.edu> snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes: >From: snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) >Subject: Re: who are we to judge, Bobby? >Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1993 21:33:56 GMT >In article <healta.56.734556346@saturn.wwc.edu> healta@saturn.wwc.edu (TAMMY R HEALY) writes: >>Bobby, >> >>I would like to take the liberty to quote from a Christian writer named  >>Ellen G. White.  I hope that what she said will help you to edit your  >>remarks in this group in the future. >> >>"Do not set yourself as a standard.  Do not make your opinions, your views  >>of duty, your interpretations of scripture, a criterion for others and in  >>your heart condemn them if they do not come up to your ideal." >>                         Thoughts Fromthe Mount of Blessing p. 124 >> >>I hope quoting this doesn't make the atheists gag, but I think Ellen White  >>put it better than I could. >>  >>Tammy > >Point? > >Peace, > >Bobby Mozumder > My point is that you set up your views as the only way to believe.  Saying  that all eveil in this world is caused by atheism is ridiculous and  counterproductive to dialogue in this newsgroups.  I see in your posts a  spirit of condemnation of the atheists in this newsgroup bacause they don' t believe exactly as you do.  If you're here to try to convert the atheists  here, you're failing miserably.  Who wants to be in position of constantly  defending themselves agaist insulting attacks, like you seem to like to do?! I'm sorry you're so blind that you didn't get the messgae in the quote,  everyone else has seemed to.