waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <116171@bu.edu>, jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) wrote: >  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.  >   Don't mind my saying this but the best example of obfuscation is to condemn without having even your most basic facts straight. If you want some examples, go back and look at your previous posts, where you manage to get your facts wrong about the fatwa and Khomeini's  supposed infallibility.
kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:  >>I think that you are confusing the words "objective" and "inherent." >>And objective system is simply one in which an outside observer who, >>given the postulates of the system, could perfectly judge any situation >>or action as consistent with the system (right) or not (wrong).  You seem >>to be objecting because the goals of the system are not inherent.  That is, >>you seem to want to define an objective system as one in which the >>postulates themselves could be determined by some outside observer. >>I don't think that this is a good definition of an objective system. >Then you need to learn English.  Really>`?  >Gravity is an objective system.  Anybody can learn what it is, and perform >experiments.  They will get the same results as every other person who >has performed those experiments.  No, gravity is an inherent system.  You don't need any excess information other than observations to determine anything.  It is possible to objectively determine someone's guilt or innocence within an non-inherent system. I agree that morality is not necessarily inherent (unless you state that everything we do has an evolutionary basis), but this does not mean that it cannot be objective in theory.  >This "natural morality" is not an objective system, as evidenced by >your comments about lions, and mine.  Perhaps it can be objective, but not inherent.  Anyway, as I noted before, the practices related to mating rituals, etc. among the animals are likely the only ones to be considered "immoral" under the previous "definitions" of the natural law.  Therefore, some revisions are in order, since the class of activities surrounding mating seem to pose some general problems.  >>And in fact, the only way that the postulates could be determined by an >>outsider would be if there were some sort of higher truth, like some >>sort of god or something.  But, I do not think that a god is necessary >>for an objective system, while it seems that you do. >What are you trying to say here?  It seens that you are objecting to the notion of an objective system because perhaps you think that it would imply inherence, which would necessitate some sort of grand design?  >>No, I have classified behavior of most animals as in line with a >>moral system.  It is certainly possible for animals to commit acts >>which are outside of their rules of ethics, but they don't seem to >>do so very often.  Perhaps they are not intelligent enough to be >>immoral. >And perhaps it's because you have yet to define a "moral" system.  I think I have.  It is a code of ethics which basically defines undesired behaviors, etc.  An immoral behavior could be unwanted, unproductive, or destructive, etc., depending on the goal of the system (that is, immoral to what end?).
In article <1qi156INNf9n@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>, tcbruno@athena.mit.edu (Tom Bruno) writes: >  > Wow.  Leave your terminal for a few months and everyone you remember goes > away-- how depressing.  Actually, there are a few familiar faces out there, > counting Bob and Kent, but I don't seem to recognize anyone else.  Has anyone > heard from Graham Matthews recently, or has he gotten his degree and sailed > for Greener Pastures (tm)?   >  > 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 > the newsgroup, but when you fall behind, you REALLY fall behind (it's still not > as bad as rec.arts.startrek used to be, but I digress).  Has anyone tried to > keep up with the deluge?  Inquiring minds want to know!  Also-- does anyone > keep track of where the more infamous posters to alt.atheism end up, once they > leave the newsgroup?  Just curious, I guess. >  > cheers, > tom bruno   I am one of those people who always willl have unlimited stores of unfounded respect for people who have been on newsgroups/mailing lists longer than I have, so you certainly have my sympathy Tom.  I have only been semi-regularly posting (it is TOUGHto keep up) since this February, but I have been reading and following the threads since last August: my school's newsreader was down for months and our incompetent computing services never bothered to find a new feed site, so it wasn't accepting outgoing postings.  I don't think anyone keeps track of where other posters go: it's that old love 'em and leave 'em Internet for you again...   best regards,
In article <65882@mimsy.umd.edu> mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes: }>For several years I've periodically asked Charley Wingate to explain this }>mythical alternative to rationality which he propounds so enthusiastically }>when he pops up every few months.  His reluctance to explain indicates to me }>that it's not so hot. } }I've said enough times that there is no "alternative" that should think you }might have caught on by now.  And there is no "alternative", but the point }is, "rationality" isn't an alternative either.  The problems of metaphysical }and religious knowledge are unsolvable-- or I should say, humans cannot }solve them.  If there is truly no alternative, then you have no basis whatsoever for your claim.  The usual line here, which you call "a prejudgment of atheism", and dispute, is that reason is all we have.  Here you admit that you have no alternative, no possible basis for the claim that there is anything other than reason or that reason is inapplicable in religious knowledge, except possibly that reason conflicts with "religious knowledge".  This sounds very much like "I can't provide a rational defense for my belief, but prefer to discard rationality rather than accept that it may be false".  I hope it makes you happy, but your repeated and unfounded assertions to this effect don't advance your cause.
In article <C5rACM.41q@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu> bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes:   >I can't recall anyone claiming that God -makes- anyone act a particlar >way, I think that you're attempting to manufacture a contradiction.   A world creator god does, the moment it creates the world. And to sayi that you can't recall *anyone* is even below your usual standard of a"arguing".   My argument is based on quite usual theistic assumptions, namely god is perfect, god is all-knowing god sets the rules. The rules don't work for whatever reason. Because of its omniscience, the god has known it. In advance.   (Deletion) >To say that something defined contadictorily cannot exist, is really >asking too much; you would have existence depend on grammar. All you >can really say is that something is poorly defined, but that in itself >is insufficient to decide anything (other than confusion of course). >   It is not a question of grammar, it is a question of modelling. Has been discussed in the wonderful time when you were not posting to this group. When A is contradictorily defined A does not point to an instance in reality. Unless there is more information in the definition of A that allows me to find it somehow. However, when the contradictory attribute is said to be essential, ie has not got that attribute => not the A I am looking for, I can conclude that A does not exist.     >Your point that there are better reasons for the phenomenon of belief >than the object of belief may lead to a rat's nest of unnecessary >complexity. I think I know what you're implying, but I'd like to see >your version of this better alternative just the same. >   That's quite like: I predict coins falling    Predicted            Happened 1.   Heads                 Tails 2.   Tails                 Tails 3.   Heads                 Tails 4.   Heads                 Tails   I take 2. and dismiss the rest because of the unnecessary complexity the other evidence causes.
Benedikt Rosenau (I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de) wrote:  : When the object of their belief is said to be perfect and make the believers : act in a certain way and we observe that they don't, we have a contradiction. : Something defined contradictorily cannot exist. That what the believe in does : not exist. Secondly, there are better explanations for why they believe than : the existence of the object of their belief. :   :   : Have you read the FAQ already? :    Benedikt  Benedikt,  I can't recall anyone claiming that God -makes- anyone act a particlar way, I think that you're attempting to manufacture a contradiction. God is said to require certain behavior, but the only compulsion is the believer's sense of duty. A standard of conduct does exist, but we are free to ignore it or misunderstand it or distort it in whatever ways we find convenient, but our response to God's edicts can in no way be used to question God's existence. The behavior of believers is a completely separate question from that of God's existence; there is nothing contradictory here.  To say that something defined contadictorily cannot exist, is really asking too much; you would have existence depend on grammar. All you can really say is that something is poorly defined, but that in itself is insufficient to decide anything (other than confusion of course).  Your point that there are better reasons for the phenomenon of belief than the object of belief may lead to a rat's nest of unnecessary complexity. I think I know what you're implying, but I'd like to see your version of this better alternative just the same.
In article <chrisb.734068710@bAARNie>, chrisb@tafe.sa.edu.au (Chris BELL) writes... >	killing is wrong >	if you kill we will punish you >	our punishment will be to kill you. >  >Seems to be lacking in consistency.  Not any more so than        holding people against their will is wrong       if you hold people against their will we will punish you       our punishment will be to hold you against your will  Is there any punishment which isn't something which, if done by a private person to another private person for no apparent reason, would lead to punishment?  (Fines, I suppose.)
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:  >>So, you are saying that it isn't possible for an instinctive act >>to be moral one? >I like to think that many things are possible.   Explain to me >how instinctive acts can be moral acts, and I am happy to listen.  For example, if it were instinctive not to murder...  >>That is, in order for an act to be an act of morality, >>the person must consider the immoral action but then disregard  >>it? >Weaker than that.   There must be the possibility that the >organism - it's not just people we are talking about - can >consider alternatives.  So, only intelligent beings can be moral, even if the bahavior of other beings mimics theirs?  And, how much emphasis do you place on intelligence? Animals of the same species could kill each other arbitarily, but they don't.  Are you trying to say that this isn't an act of morality because most animals aren't intelligent enough to think like we do?
In article <1ql06qINN2kf@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes: >kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes: >>Schneider >>>Natural morality may specifically be thought of as a code of ethics that >>>a certain species has developed in order to survive. >>Wait.  Are we talking about ethics or morals here? > >Is the distinction important?  Yes.  >>>We see this countless >>>times in the animal kingdom, and such a "natural" system is the basis for >>>our own system as well. >>Huh? > >Well, our moral system seems to mimic the natural one, in a number of ways.  Please describe these "number of ways" in detail.  Then explain the any contradictions that may arise.  >>>In order for humans to thrive, we seem to need >>>to live in groups, >>Here's your problem.  "we *SEEM* to need".  What's wrong with the highlighted >>word? > >I don't know.  What is wrong?  Is it possible for humans to survive for >a long time in the wild?  Yes, it's possible, but it is difficult.  Humans >are a social animal, and that is a cause of our success.  Define "difficult".  >>>and in order for a group to function effectively, it >>>needs some sort of ethical code. >>This statement is not correct. > >Isn't it?  Why don't you think so?  Explain the laws in America stating that you have to drive on the right- hand side of the road.  >>>And, by pointing out that a species' conduct serves to propogate itself, >>>I am not trying to give you your tautology, but I am trying to show that >>>such are examples of moral systems with a goal.  Propogation of the species >>>is a goal of a natural system of morality. >>So anybody who lives in a monagamous relationship is not moral?  After all, >>in order to ensure propogation of the species, every man should impregnate >>as many women as possible. > >No.  As noted earlier, lack of mating (such as abstinence or homosexuality) >isn't really destructive to the system.  It is a worst neutral.  So if every member of the species was homosexual, this wouldn't be destructive to the survival of the species?  >>For that matter, in herds of horses, only the dominate stallion mates.  When >>he dies/is killed/whatever, the new dominate stallion is the only one who >>mates.  These seems to be a case of your "natural system of morality" trying >>to shoot itself in the figurative foot. > >Again, the mating practices are something to be reexamined...  The whole "theory" needs to be reexamined...
In article <1993Apr19.124834.5640@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>, darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:  |>  |> The difference, as I understand it, is that when one _invests_, one |> shares in the risk of the venture, whereas when a bank _lends_ money |> while charging interest, the bank takes little risk.  The entire business of a Bank is the management of risk.   That's what a Bank is for.   That's what people who work for Banks do.  |>  |> Something like that anyway (financial stuff ain't my thing).  OK, but in that case why are you posting about it?   What I hear you saying is "I don't understand this stuff, but if Islam says it's so, it's so".
In article <C5pxqs.LM5@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>, bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes: > dean.kaflowitz (decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com) wrote: >  > : Now, what I am interested in is the original notion you were discussing > : on moral free agency.  That is, how can a god punish a person for > : not believing in him when that person is only following his or her > : nature and it is not possible for that person to deny what his or > : her reason tells him or her, which is that there is no god? >  > Dean, >  > I think you're letting atheist mythology  Great start.  I realize immediately that you are not interested in discussion and are going to thump your babble at me.  I would much prefer an answer from Ms Healy, who seems to have a reasonable and reasoned approach to things.  Say, aren't you the creationist guy who made a lot of silly statements about evolution some time ago?  > confuse you on the issue of > Divine justice. According to the most fundamental doctrines of > Christianity, When the first man sinned, he was at that time the > entire human race and any "punishment" meted out would necessarily > affect the entire race of which he was the sole representive.All > humans coming after him would, being of the same race (species), share > in that judgement. It has nothing to do with who deserves what. > From the perspective of God, humanity is but one category of created > things and that category is condemned.   Duh, gee, then we must be talking Christian mythology now.  I was hoping to discuss something with a reasonable, logical person, but all you seem to have for your side is a repetition of the same boring mythology I've seen a thousand times before. I am deleting the rest of your remarks, unless I spot something that approaches an answer, because they are merely a repetition of some uninteresting doctrine or other and contain no thought at all.  [..]  I have to congratulate you, though, Bill.  You wouldn't know a logical argument if it bit you on the balls.  Such a persistent lack of function in the face of repeated attempts to assist you in learning (which I have seen in this forum and others in the past) speaks of a talent that goes well beyond my own, meager abilities.  I just don't seem to have that capacity for ignoring outside influences.
I think that _The_Transcedental_Temptation_, by Paul Kurtz, has a good section on the origins of Mormonism you might want to look at.
Jim Perry (perry@dsinc.com) wrote:  : The Bible says there is a God; if that is true then our atheism is : mistaken.  What of it?  Seems pretty obvious to me.  Socrates said : there were many gods; if that is true then your monotheism (and our : atheism) is mistaken, even if Socrates never existed.   Jim,  I think you must have come in late. The discussion (on my part at least) began with Benedikt's questioning of the historical acuuracy of the NT. I was making the point that, if the same standards are used to validate secular history that are used here to discredit NT history, then virtually nothing is known of the first century.  You seem to be saying that the Bible -cannot- be true because it speaks of the existence of God as it it were a fact. Your objection has nothing to do with history, it is merely another statement of atheism.
In <sfnNTrC00WBO43LRUK@andrew.cmu.edu> "David R. Sacco" <dsav+@andrew.cmu.edu>  writes:  >After tons of mail, could we move this discussion to alt.religion?  Yes.  MAC >============================================================= >--There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke. (Bob Dylan) >--"If you were happy every day of your life you wouldn't be a human >being, you'd be a game show host." (taken from the movie "Heathers.") >--Lecture (LEK chur) - process by which the notes of the professor >become the notes of the student without passing through the minds of >either. -- ****************************************************************                                                     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 <1993Apr9.154316.19778@ultb.isc.rit.edu> snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes:  >In article <kmr4.1483.734243128@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:   >>	If I state that I know that there is a green marble in a closed box,  >>which I have _never_ seen, nor have any evidence for its existance; I would >>be guilty of deceit, even if there is, in fact, a green marble inside. >> >>	The question of whether or not there is a green marble inside, is  >>irrelevent.  >You go ahead and play with your marbles.  I love it, I love it, I love it!! Wish I could fit all that into a .sig file! (If someone is keeping a list of Bobby quotes, be sure to include this one!)  >> >>	Stating an unproven opinion as a fact, is deceit. And, knowingly  >>being decietful is a falsehood and a lie.  >So why do you think its an unproven opinion?  If I said something as >fact but you think its opinion because you do not accept it, then who's >right?  The Flat-Earthers state that "the Earth is flat" is a fact. I don't accept this, I think it's an unproven opinion, and I think the Round-Earthers are right because they have better evidence than the Flat-Earthers do.  Although I can't prove that a god doesn't exist, the arguments used to support a god's existence are weak and often self-contradictory, and I'm not going to believe in a god unless someone comes over to me and gives me a reason to believe in a god that I absolutely can't ignore.  A while ago, I read an interesting book by a fellow called Von Daenicken, in which he proved some of the wildest things, and on the last page, he wrote something like "Can you prove it isn't so?" I certainly can't, but I'm not going to believe him, because he based his "proof" on some really questionable stuff, such as old myths (he called it "circumstancial evidence" :] ).  So far, atheism hasn't made me kill anyone, and I'm regarded as quite an agreeable fellow, really. :)
In article <healta.176.735768613@saturn.wwc.edu>, healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy) writes: > In article <1993Apr25.020546.22426@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes: > >From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) > >Subject: Re: YOU WILL ALL GO TO HELL!!! > >Date: Sun, 25 Apr 93 02:05:46 GMT > >In article <8473@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk> martin@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk (Martin Gorman) writes: > >>JSN104@psuvm.psu.edu writes: > >> > >>>YOU BLASHEPHEMERS!!! YOU WILL ALL GO TO HELL FOR NOT BELIEVING IN GOD!!!!  BE > >>>PREPARED FOR YOUR ETERNAL DAMNATION!!! > >>> > >>Oh fuck off. > > > >Actually, I just think he's confused.  *I'm* going to hell because I'm Gay, > >not becuase I don't believe in God. > > > >(I wonder if that means I can't come to Tammy & Deans picnic?) >  > Of course you can come.  I said "ALL a.a posters are invited" and I didn't  > put a "No homosexual" clause.  Bring some munchies and join the party!!! > I can't imagine Dean objecting, either.  Knowing Keith, I expect he'll bring the leather accessories.  Better oil it well.  Leather cracks when it dries.