waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <115687@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:   (deletion) >Sure. Yes, I did. You see I don't think that rape and murder should >be dealt with lightly. You, being so interested in leniency for >leniency's sake, apparently think that people should simply be >told the "did a _bad_ thing." >   Straw man. And you brought up leniency.     >>And what about the simple chance of misjudgements? > >Misjudgments should be avoided as much as possible. >I suspect that it's pretty unlikely that, given my requirement >of repeated offenses, that misjudgments are very likely. >   Assuming that misjudgements are not correlated.     (Deletion) >>I just love to compare such lines to the common plea of your fellow believers >>not to call each others names. In this case, to substantiate it: The Quran >>allows that one beATs one's wife into submission. > > >Really? Care to give chapter and verse? We could discuss it. >   Has been discussed here. Chapter and verse were cited, I assume that you weren't looking then.   Let's be more exact, do you think it is not in the Quran?. And what would your consequences be when it it was shown to be in it?     >>Primitive Machism refers to >>that. (I have misspelt that before, my fault). > >Again, not all of the Orient follows the Qur'an. So you'll have to do >better than that. >   I have not claimed that. It is sufficient for the argument when there are a lot of male dominated societies that qualify as Machistic. Are you going to say that the situation of women is better in sufficeint areas of the Orient?     (Deletion) >This is an argument for why _you_ don't like religions that suppress >sex. A such it's an irrelevant argument. > >If you'd like to generalize it to an objective statement then >fine. My response is then: you have given no reason for your statement >that sex is not the business of religion (one of your "arguments"). > >The urge for sex in adolescents is not so strong that any overly strong >measures are required to suppress it. If the urge to have sex is so >strong in an adult then that adult can make a commensurate effort to >find a marriage partner. >   You apparently have trouble reading things you don't like. The point was having sex the way one wishes being a strong desire. Marriage is a red herring. Tell me about homosexuals, for one. You simply ignore everything that doesn't fit into the world as you would like to have it.
One thing I think is interesting about alt.athiesm is the fact that without bible-thumpers and their ilk this would be a much duller newsgroup. It almost needs the deluded masses to write silly things for athiests to tear apart. Oh well, that little tidbit aside here is what I really wanted write about.        How can anyone believe in such a sorry document as the bible? If you want to be religious aren't there more plausable books out there? Seriously, the bible was written by multiple authors who repeatedly contradict each other. One minute it tells you to kill your kid if he talks back and the next it says not to kill at all. I think that if xtians really want to follow a deity they should pick one that can be consistent, unlike the last one they invented.        For people who say Jesus was the son of god, didn't god say not to EVER put ANYONE else before him? Looks like you did just that. Didn't god say not to make any symbols or idols? What are crosses then? Don't you think that if you do in fact believe in the bible that you are rather far off track?  Was Jesus illiterate? Why didn't he write anything? Anyone know?        I honestly hope that people who believe in the bible understand that it is just one of the religious texts out there and that it is one of the poorer quality ones to boot. The only reason xtianity escaped the middle east is because a certain roman who's wine was poisoned with lead made all of rome xtian after a bad dream.        If this posting keeps one person, just ONE person, from standing on a streetcorner and telling people they are going to hell I will be happy.
decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:  >In article <C5LH4p.27K@portal.hq.videocart.com>, dfuller@portal.hq.videocart.com (Dave Fuller) 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!!! >>  >>   What do you mean "be prepared" ?? Surrounded by thumpers like yourself >> has proven to be hellish enough . . . and I'm not even dead yet !!  >Well here's how I prepared.  I got one of those big beach >umbrellas, some of those gel-pack ice things, a big Coleman cooler >which I've loaded up with Miller Draft (so I like Miller Draft, >so sue me), a new pair of New Balance sneakers, a Sony >Watchman, and a couple of cartons of BonTon Cheddar Cheese >Popcorn.  [stuff deleted]  Actually, you get a ton of weapons and ammunition, 70-80 followers, and hole up in some kind of compound, and wait for . . . . :-)
nancyo@fraser.sfu.ca (Nancy Patricia O'Connor) writes:  >timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu (Bake Timmons) writes:  >>Rule #4:  Don't mix apples with oranges.  How can you say that the >>extermination by the Mongols was worse than Stalin?  Khan conquered people >>unsympathetic to his cause.  That was atrocious.  But Stalin killed millions of >>his own people who loved and worshipped _him_ and his atheist state!!  How can >>anyone be worse than that?  >You're right.  And David Koresh claimed to be a Christian.  Yup.  I can hear the _millions_ cheering for DK right now!  Josef Stalin eat your heart out!  :) -- Bake Timmons, III
kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes: >         Would you mind e-mailing me the questions, with the pairs of answers? > I would love to have them for the next time a Theist comes to my door!  I'd like this too... maybe you should post an answer key after a while?  Nanci
MC> Theory of Creationism: MY theistic view of the theory of MC> creationism, (there  are many others) is stated in Genesis MC> 1.  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.  And which order of Creation do you accept?	The story of creation is one of the many places in the Bible where the Story contradicts itself.  The following is an example...  GEN 1:25  And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle  after  their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. GEN 1:26  And God said, Let us make man in our image,  after  our likeness:  and  let  them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and  over  all the  earth,  and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.  GEN 2:18  And the LORD God said, It is  not  good  that  the  man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. GEN 2:19  And out of the ground the LORD God formed  every  beast of  the  field,  and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever  Adam  called every living creature, that was the name thereof.  Even your Bible cannot agree on how things were created.  Why should we believe in it?
In article <1993Apr5.024626.19942@ultb.isc.rit.edu> snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes: > >Peace,    Bobby:    Get this the hell out of your .sig until you 1) learn what it   stands for and 2) really mean it.  /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\   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 <1qnpa6INN8av@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes: >>Hanging? Hanging there slowing being strangled would be very  >>painful, both physically and psychologicall, I imagine. > >Well, most hangings are very quick and, I imagine, painless.  	I think this is a misnomer.  > >>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. > >And, hangings and firing squads are allowed today, too.  And, if these >things were not considered cruel, then surely a medical execution >(painless) would not be, either.  	But, this just shows then that painful execution is not considered  "cruel" and unusual punishment. This shows that "cruel" as used in the  constitution does NOT refer to whether or not the punishment causes physical  pain. 	Rather, it must be a different meaning.  ---      " I'd Cheat on Hillary Too."
> O.K., so pick former Yugoslavia instead and say their problems are caused > by communism, it doesn't really matter.  But I guess religious leaders are > calling for an end to that, too, so it can't be religiously motivated.  This > despite the fact that the Christians carve crosses in dead Muslims chests. > Maybe they just want land.  Maybe its something else they want.  Maybe the > cross carvings are just accidental.  I don't know.  Just looks suspicious.  Most likely the tragic situation in Bosnia is a combination of ethnical and religious motives, where religion is just one attribute that separates the groups from each other.  But I must agree that the sad saga in Bosnia is a terrible example of a case where religion is not helping, instead it is used as a weapon against other humans. And my sympathies are mostly on the Bosnian side, it looks like the Serbs are the oppressors, willing to use even Christianity as a weapon against their former friends.  Cheers, Kent
jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes:  >My syllogism is of the form: >A is B. >C is A. >Therefore C is B.  >This is a logically valid construction.  >Your syllogism, however, is of the form: >A is B. >C is B. >Therefore C is A.  >Therefore yours is a logically invalid construction,  >and your comments don't apply.  >I appeal to Mathew (Mantis) here who wrote the excellent >post (now part of the FAQ) on logical argument.  >Jim B.  I am not Mathew (Mantis) but any (successful) first year logic student will see that you are logically correct, the other poster is logically incorrect.
On Wed, 21 Apr 1993 08:16:14 GMT sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) wrote: >In article <C5rGKB.4Fs@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>, bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu  [re. Conner's questioning of the blissful afterlife as a reason why many joined the early Xian church]  >Well, as I remember Jacoby's "Mythmaker" talks about this to cite >one source -- but I'm not sure if all Christians have read this book. >In addition my social experiences is from being raised and educated >as a Lutheran, having a lot of Christian friends, and I even >have played in two Christian rock bands!  Do you mean Hyam Maccoby's _The Mythmaker_?
Andrew Newell <TAN102@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:  >>>Sure, they may fall back on other things, but this is one they >>>should not have available to use. >>It is worse than others? >Worse?  Maybe not, but it is definately a violation of the >rules the US govt. supposedly follows.  Oh?  >>>For the motto to be legitimate, it would have to read: >>>   "In god, gods, or godlessness we trust" >>Would you approve of such a motto? >No.  ...not unless the only way to get rid of the current one >was to change it to such as that.  What is wrong with *this* motto, now?  If you wouldn't approve of even that one, I am beginning to think that you just have something against mottos in general.  What do you think of "E plurbis unum?"
bissda@saturn.wwc.edu (DAN LAWRENCE BISSELL) writes:  >First I want to start right out and say that I'm a Christian.  Well, this is alt.atheism.  I hope you arent here to try to convert anyone.  >It makes sense to be one.  Many would disagree.  [...] >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.  Well, you shouldn't give any particular book too much weight.  Actually, I don't think that any of these statements is correct.  It is more likely that most of Jesus' fame was attributed to him after his death by those who had some strong motives...  [...] >Some other things to note.  He fulfilled loads of prophecies in  >the psalms, Isaiah and elsewhere in 24 hrs alone.  What's a prophecy, and what's so significant about them?  >I don't think most people understand what a Christian is.  I think we understand.  >It is certainly not what I see a lot in churches.  Rather I think it  >should be a way of life, and a total sacrafice of everything for God's  >sake.  Well, sell your computer and donate you life to your religion now... Don't waste any time.
dps@nasa.kodak.com Pontificated:  >Simple logic arguments are folly.  If you read the Bible you will see >that Jesus made fools of those who tried to trick him with "logic".  Can you cite an example of this.  Please post an answer as I don't want to receive e-mail.
In <kmr4.1576.734879396@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:  >In article <1qj9gq$mg7@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank  O'Dwyer) writes:  >>Is good logic *better* than bad?  Is good science better than bad?    > By definition.   > great - good - okay - bad - horrible  >    << better >       worse >>   > Good is defined as being better than bad.  >--- How do we come up with this setup?  Is this subjective, if enough people agreed we could switch the order?  Isn't this defining one unknown thing by another?  That is, good is that which is better than bad, and bad is that which is worse than good?  Circular?  MAC >   Only when the Sun starts to orbit the Earth will I accept the Bible.  >          -- ****************************************************************                                                     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
bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:  >To show that the examples I and others >have provided are *not* counter examples of your supposed inherent >moral hypothesis, you have to successfully argue that >domestication removes or alters this morality.  I think that domestication will change behavior to a large degree. Domesticated animals exhibit behaviors not found in the wild.  I don't think that they can be viewed as good representatives of the wild animal kingdom, since they have been bred for thousands of years to produce certain behaviors, etc.
In article <kmr4.1718.735827952@po.CWRU.edu>, kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes: > In article <C63AEC.FB3@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes: >  > >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. >  > 	The "R Us" is not trademarked, but the "Backwards R Us" is, I  > believe.  Yup, I think you're right.  My mistake.  Now, how do I make an "R" backwards using a computer keyboard?  I'll bet the gods know how (this is alt.atheism, after all).  Tell you what, if all my "R"s start coming out backwards when I type from now on, I'll become a believer.  (And that's not asking for miracles.  If I asked for a miracle, I'd ask for a real miracle, like for Pat Buchanan to become an out-of-the-closet drag queen - well...maybe that wouldn't be so miraculous, but I think he'd look fabulous in a feather boa and a sequined hat like Mia Farrow wore in Gatsby.)
In article <C5rEKJ.49y@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>, bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes: |> James Felder (spbach@lerc.nasa.gov) wrote: |>  |> : Logic alert -  argument from incredulity.  Just because it is hard for you  |> : to believe this doesn't mean that it isn't true.  Liars can be very pursuasive |> : just look at Koresh that you yourself cite. |>  |> This is whole basis of a great many here rejecting the Christian |> account of things. In the words of St. Madalyn Murrey-O'Hair, "Face it |> folks, it's just silly ...". Why is it okay to disbelieve because of |> your incredulity if you admit that it's a fallacy? |>  |> Bill  I suppose for the same reason that you do not believe in all the gods.  Why should any be any different?  I use the same arguments to dismiss Koresh as I do god.  Tell me, then, why do you not believe that Koresh is the son of god?  By logic it is equally possible that Koresh is Jesus reborn.
In article <1993Apr2.144909.806@batman.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com writes: >In article <1993Apr2.165032.3356@bradford.ac.uk>, L.Newnham@bradford.ac.uk (Leonard Newnham) writes: [deletions] >>...Argument from incredulity has not been considered a valid form of >> reasoning since medieval times. [deletions] >Interesting that you should mention that "Argument from incredulity has >not been considered a valid form of reasoning since medieval times."  I >quite agree.  Why then, do some atheists here engage in it?  More than >a few times I have read posts where the atheists posting state that >they 'cannot see how a gracious and loving God can allow such evil and >suffering to occur as we see on the earth.'  Simply because they cannot >envision it, it must not be true.  If this is not an argument from >incredulity, I don't know what is!   As you have presented it, it is indeed an argument from incredulity. However, from what I have seen, it is not often presented in this manner. It is usually presented more in the form, "And *besides*, I cannot see... ...nor have I ever been offered a convincing explanation."  Moreover, it is not unreasonable to ask for an explanation for such phenomena. That theism does not provide a convincing explanation is not an argument in theism's favor. Especially when different theisms offer  different explanations, and even different adherents of what is purportedly the same theism give different explanations...  >                                    God has far more complex motivations >and reasons for action or non-action than to simply "fix" evil whenever >and however it occurs, or even *before* it occurs.  And yet, it is this >very same argument from incredulity which ranks high among reasons >why atheists (in general) reject God and in particular the Christian God.   Not im my experience. In my experience, the most common reason is the lack of evidence in theism's favor. You mileage may vary. :->  >This seems to be the universal bane of human reasoning and rationality,  >to wit, that it is far easier to see the logical fallacy or inept reasoning  >on the part of one's opponents than it is to see it in oneself.   Oh, heck, I'll be snide this once. :-> It's also fairly easy to attack arguments that are not made. (I.e. 'strawmen'.)  >As one Man of Wisdom put it, take the log out of your own eye before you  >try to remove the splinter from your neighbor's eye.   Sage advice indeed.   Sincerely,   Raymond Ingles                       ingles@engin.umich.edu
In article <30121@ursa.bear.com>, halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) writes: >In article <115288@bu.edu>, jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes: >> >>He'd have to be precise about is rejection of God and his leaving Islam. >>One is perfectly free to be muslim and to doubt and question the >>existence of God, so long as one does not _reject_ God. I am sure that >>Rushdie has be now made his atheism clear in front of a sufficient  >>number of proper witnesses. The question in regard to the legal issue >>is his status at the time the crime was committed.  >  I'll also add that it is impossible to actually tell when one _rejects_ god.  Therefore, you choose to punish only those who _talk_ about it.
In article <4963@eastman.UUCP>, dps@nasa.kodak.com (Dan Schaertel,,,) wrote: >  >  > The life , death, and resurection of Christ is documented historical fact.   Not by any standard of history I've seen. Care to back this up, sans the lies apologists are so fond of?  > However all the major events of the life > of Jesus Christ were fortold hundreds of years before him.  Neat trick uh?  Not really. Most of the prophesies aren't even prophesies. They're prayers and comments taken from the Torah quite out of context. Seems Xians started lying right from the beginning.  >  > There is no way to get into a sceptical heart.  You can not say you have given a  > sincere effort with the attitude you seem to have.  My we're an arrogant ass, aren't we?  > You must TRUST, not just go  > to church and participate in it's activities.   You're wrong to think we haven't. The trust was in something that doesn't exist.  > Were you ever willing to die for what > you believed?    I'm still willing to die for what I believe and don't believe. So were the loonies in Waco. So what?   Besides, the point's not to die for what one believes in. The point's to make that other sorry son-of-a-bitch to die for what *he* believes in!   :)  Doesn't anyone else here get tired of these cretins' tirades?  Peter the Damed, and damned proud of it!
joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin) writes:  >Someone writes: >>I found a list of Biblical contradictions and cleaned it up a bit, >>but now I'd like some help with it.  >I'm curious to know what purpose people think these lists serve.  It's about time.  Why do atheists spend so much time paying attention to the bible, anyway?  Face it, there are better things to do with your life!  I used to chuckle and snort over the silliness in that book and the absurdity of people believing in it as truth, etc.  Why do we spend so little time on the Mayan religion, or the Native Americans?  Heck, the Native Americans have signifigantly more interesting myths.  Also, what about the Egyptians.  I think we pay so much attention to Christianity because we accept it as a _religion_ and not a mythology, which I find more accurate.   I try to be tolerant.  It gets very hard when someone places a book under my nose and tells me it's special.  It's not.
In article <1pa0f4INNpit@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:  > But really, are you threatened by the motto, or by the people that use it?  Every time somone writes something and says it is merely describing the norm, it is infact re-inforcing that norm upon those programmed not to think for themselves. The motto is dangerous in itself, it tells the world that every *true* American is god-fearing, and puts down those who do not fear gods. It doesn't need anyone to make it dangerous, it does a good job itself by just existing on your currency.  > keith  The Desert Brat
Scott D. Sauyet (SSAUYET@eagle.wesleyan.edu) wrote:  : The same works for the horrors of history.  To claim that Christianity : had little to do with the Crusades or the Inquisition is to deny the : awesome power that comes from faith in an absolute.  What it seems you : are doing twisting the reasonable statement that religion was never : the solitary cause of any evil into the unreasonable statement that : religion has had no evil impacts on history.  That is absurd.  Scott,  Until this paragraph I would willingly amend my earlier statements, since your point(s) are well made and generally accurate. This last part though slips into hyperbole. Since I've discussed my objections to such generalizations before, I really don't feel I need to do it again. If you haven't seen those posts, ask Maddi, she saves everything I write.