waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article 013423TAN102@psuvm.psu.edu, Andrew Newell <TAN102@psuvm.psu.edu> writes: ->In article <1993Apr9.151914.1885@daffy.cs.wisc.edu>, mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu ->(Mark McCullough) says: ->> ->>In article <monack.733980580@helium> monack@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (david ->>n->>monack) writes: ->>>Another issue is that by having to request to not be required to ->>>recite the "so help me God" part of the oath, a theistic jury may be ->>>prejudiced against your testimony even though atheism is probably not ->>>at all relevant to the case. ->>> ->>>What is the recommended procedure for requesting an alternate oath or ->>>affirmation? ->>> ->>>Dave  Sorry for using a follow-up to respond, but my server dropped about a weeks worth of news when it couldn't keep up.  When the you are asked to swear "So help you god" and you have to say it, ask which one; Jesus, Allah, Vishnu, Zues, Odin.  Get them to be specific.   Don't be obnoxious, just humbly ask, then  quitely sit back and watch the fun.  ---  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- James L. Felder			| Sverdrup Technology,Inc.	|     phone: 216-891-4019 NASA Lewis Research Center     	|     Cleveland, Ohio  44135         	|     email: jfelder@lerc.nasa.gov  "Some people drink from the fountain of knowledge, other people gargle"
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:  >>They spent quite a bit of time on the wording of the Constitution.  >I realise that this is widely held belief in America, but in fact >the clause on cruel and unusual punishments, like a lot of the >rest, was lifted from the English Bill of Rights of 1689.  Just because the wording is elsewhere does not mean they didn't spend much time on the wording.  >>We have already looked in the dictionary to define the word.  Isn't  >>this sufficient? >Since the dictionary said that a lack of mercy or an intent to >inflict injury or grief counted as "cruel", sure.  People can be described as cruel in this way, but punishments cannot.
In article <1ql5snINN4vm@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes: |> 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...  Then not murdering would have no moral significance, since there would be nothing voluntary about it.  |>  |> >>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?  You are starting to get the point.   Mimicry is not necessarily the  same as the action being imitated.   A Parrot saying "Pretty Polly"  isn't necessarily commenting on the pulchritude of Polly.  |> And, how much emphasis do you place on intelligence?  See above.  |> Animals of the same species could kill each other arbitarily, but  |> they don't.  They do.   I and other posters have given you many examples of exactly this, but you seem to have a very short memory.  |> 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?  I'm saying:  	"There must be the possibility that the organism - it's not  	just people we are talking about - can consider alternatives."  It's right there in the posting you are replying to.
Maddi Hausmann (madhaus@netcom.com) wrote: : jcopelan@nyx.cs.du.edu (The One and Only) writes: >  : >We could start with those posters who annoy us the most, like Bobby or : >Bill.  : Your wish is my command.  : Bill "Shit-stirrer" Connor : Bobby "Circular" Mozumder  I'm not sure my new nom d'net is exactly appropriate, but it comes very close. Considering what I have to wade through before I make one of my insightful, dead-on-the-money repsonses, I have to agree that something's getting stirred up. I would like to believe my characterization of what I respond to would be kinder though, but if you insist ...  I am also surprised to find that I have offended anyone, but in some cases it's unavoidable if I am to say anything at all. For those to whom fairness is important, check out my contributions, haven't I been most generous and patient, a veritable paragon of gentility?  Oh, BTW, I don't mind being paired with Bobby; I admire his tenacity. How many of you would do as well in this hostile environment - you think -I'm- offensive ?! read your own posts ...  Love and kisses,  Bill  P.S.
Mark McCullough (mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu) wrote: : >Prove it. I have a source that says that to date, the civilian death count : >(er, excuse me, I mean "collateral damage") is about 200,000. :  : I have _never_ seen any source that was claiming such a figure.  Please : post the source so its reliability can be judged.    This figure would not simply be deaths by bombing, but also death later from disease (the sewer system of Baghdad was deliberately targeted) and starvation. I believe (but when I get a copy of the latest research in June or July) that this was the figure proposed in the Census Bureau  report on the matter. The report was suppressed and the CB attempted to sack the author of the report, but failed due to procedural technicality. The author is now on permanent leave.
In article <1993Apr13.213055.818@antioc.antioch.edu> smauldin@antioc.antioch.edu writes: >I stopped believing in you as well, long before the invention of technology. > >--GOD >  Don't listen to this guy, he's just a crank.  At first, this business about being the "one true god" was tolerated by the rest of us, but now it has gotten completely out of hand.  Besides, it really isn't so bad when people stop believing in you. It's much more relaxing when mortals aren't always begging you for favors.
James Felder (spbach@lerc.nasa.gov) wrote:  : Are you saying that their was a physical Adam and Eve, and that all humans are direct decendents of only these two human beings.?  Then who were Cain and Able's wives?  Couldn't be their sisters, because A&E didn't have daughters.  Were they non-humans?  Okay all humans are direct descendents of of a bunch of hopeful monsters. The human race didn't evolve from one set parents, but from thousands. Do you really base your atheist on -this-?  : Considering that something like 4 out of 5 humans on this planet don't know instinctively that the Christian god exist, the claim of instinctive knowledge doesn't look like it hold much water.  Or are you saying that the 4 billion non-Christians in the world must fight this instinctive urge to acknowledge God and JC.  Did I say that people were Christians by nature or did I say that Christians hold that everyone knows of the God the Christians worship. I would have thought the distinction obvious, sorry. Read my post again and see what I -really- said; from what you've written, I think you are just being agumentative. Also your word-wrap is screwed up or you need to shift to 80 columns text ...
In article <1qla0g$afp@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: >In article <115565@bu.edu>, jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) 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.  >Gregg, I'm really sorry if having it pointed out that in practice >things aren't quite the wonderful utopia you folks seem to claim >them to be upsets you..  You have done no such thing.   >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.  >And why did these naive depositors put their life savings into >BCCI rather than the nasty interest-motivated western bank down >the street?     This is crap. BCCI was motivated by the same motives as other international banks, with perhaps an emphasis on dealing with outlaws and the intelligence services of various governments.  >So please don't try to con us into thinking that it will all  >work out right next time.  Back to childish propaganda again. You really ought to get a life rather than wasting bandwith on such empty typing. There are thousands of Islamic banks operating throughout the world which no-one ever hears about. If you want to talk about corrupted banks we can talk about all the people who've been robbed by American banks.
Robert Knowles writes:  >> >>My my, there _are_ a few atheists with time on their hands.  :) >> >>OK, first I apologize.  I didn't bother reading the FAQ first and so fired an >>imprecise flame.  That was inexcusable. >>  >How about the nickname Bake "Flamethrower" Timmons?  Sure, but Robert "Koresh-Fetesh" (sic) Knowles seems good, too.  :)  > >You weren't at the Koresh compound around noon today by any chance, were you? > >Remember, Koresh "dried" for your sins. > >And pass that beef jerky.  Umm Umm.  Though I wasn't there, at least I can rely on you now to keep me posted on what what he's doing.  Have you any other fetishes besides those for beef jerky and David Koresh?  -- Bake Timmons, III
cmtan@iss.nus.sg (Tan Chade Meng - dan) writes:  >I somewhat agree with u.  However, what it comes to (theist) religion,  >it's a different matter.  That's because religion is like a drug, once u >use it, it's very difficult to get out of it.  That's because in >order to experience a religion, u necessarily have to have blind faith, >and once u have the blind faith, it's very diffcult for you to reason >yourself back to atheism again. >Therefore, it's unreasonable to ask people to try religion in order to >judge it.  It's like asking people to "try dying to find out what >death is like".  Well now, we can't judge death until we are dead right?  So, why should we judge religion without having experienced it?  People have said that religion is bad by any account, and that it is in no way useful, etc., but I don't totally agree with this.  Of course, we cannot really say how the religious folk would act had they not been exposed to religion, but some people at least seemed to be helped in some ways by it.  So basically, we can not judge whether religion is the right route for a given individual, or even for a general population.  We can say that it is not best for us personally (at least, you can choose not to use religion--might be hard to try to find out its benefits, as you state above).
mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:  >Keith Ryan writes: >> >>You will ignore any criticism of your logic, or any possible incongruenties >>in your stance?  You will not answer any questions on the validity of any >>opinion and/or facts you state?  >When I have to start saying "that's not what I said", and the response is >"did so!", there's no reason to continue.  If someone is not going to argue >with MY version of MY position, then they cannot be argued with.  But of course YOUR version of YOUR position has been included in the Charley Challenges, so your claim above is a flat-out lie.  Further, only last week you claimed that you "might not" answer the Challenges because you were turned off by "included text".  So which is it, do you want your context included in my articles or not?  Come to think of it, this contradiction has the makings of a new entry in the next Challenges post.  By the way, I've kept every bloody thing that you've written related to this thread, and will be only too pleased to re-post any of it to back my position.  You seem to have forgotten that you leave an electronic paper trail on the net.  >>This is the usual theist approach.  No matter how many times a certain >>argument has been disproven, shown to be non-applicable or non-sequitur; >>they keep cropping up- time after time.  >Speaking of non-sequiturs, this has little to do with what I just said.  And >have some sauce for the goose: some of the "disproof" is fallacies repeated >over and over (such as the "law of nature" argument someone posted recently).  Now, now, let's not change the subject.  Wouldn't it be best to finish up the thread in question before you begin new ones?
In article <1993Apr6.124112.12959@dcs.warwick.ac.uk> simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:  >For the guy who said he's just arrived, and asked whether Bobby's for real, >you betcha. Welcome to alt.atheism, and rest assured that it gets worse. >I have a few pearls of wisdom from Bobby which I reproduce below. Is anyone >(Keith?) keeping a big file of such stuff?  	Sorry, I was, but I somehow have misplaced my diskette from the last  couple of months or so. However, thanks to the efforts of Bobby, it is being  replenished rather quickly!    	Here is a recent favorite:  	--          "Satan and the Angels do not have freewill.           They do what god tells them to do. "          S.N. Mozumder (snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu)    --          "Satan and the Angels do not have freewill.           They do what god tells them to do. "
In <ednclark.734054731@kraken> ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:  >cfaehl@vesta.unm.edu (Chris Faehl) writes:  >>Why is it more reasonable than the trend towards obesity and the trend towards >>depression? You can't just pick your two favorite trends, notice a correlation  >>in them, and make a sweeping statement of generality. I mean, you CAN, and  >>people HAVE, but that does not mean that it is a valid or reasonable thesis.  >>At best it's a gross oversimplification of the push-pull factors people  >>experience.    [...] >Basically the social interactions of all the changing factors in our society >are far too complicated for us to control. We just have to hold on to the >panic handles and hope that we are heading for a soft landing. But one >things for sure, depression and the destruction of the nuclear family is not >due solely to sex out of marriage.  Note that I _never_ said that depression and the destruction of the nuclear family is due _solely_ to extra-marital sex.  I specifically said that it was "a prime cause" of this, not "the prime cause" or "the only cause" of this -- I recognize that there are probably other factors too, but I think that extra-marital sex and subsequent destabilization of the family is probably a significant factor to the rise in psychological problems, including depression, in the West in the 20th century.
In article <1993Apr5.020504.19326@ultb.isc.rit.edu> snm6394@ultb.isc.rit.edu (S.N. Mozumder ) writes: [...] >One of the reasons that you are atheist is that you limit God by giving >God a form.  God does not have a "face".  Wait a minute.  I thought you said that Allah (I presume Allah == God) was unknowable, and yet here you are claiming to know a very concrete fact about him.  You say that God does not have a "face".  Doesn't the bible say that God has hindparts?  How do you suggest I decide which (if any) of you is right?  Or are you both right? God has hindparts but no face?  Or does your use of quotation marks:  	God does not have a "face".  allow you to interpret this to mean whatever you like?  > >Peace, > >Bobby Mozumder
timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu (Bake Timmons) writes: >  >OK, you have disproved one thing, but you failed to "nail" me. > >See, nowhere in my post did I claim that something _must_ be believed in.  Here >are the three possibilities: > >	1) God exists.  >	2) God does not exist. >	3) I don't know. > >My attack was on strong atheism, (2).  Since I am (3), I guess by what you said >below that makes me a weak atheist.   [snip] >First of all, you seem to be a reasonable guy.  Why not try to be more honest >and include my sentence afterwards that   Honest, it just ended like that, I swear!    Hmmmm...I recognize the warning signs...alternating polite and rude...coming into newsgroup with huge chip on shoulder...calls people names and then makes nice...whirrr...click...whirrr  "Clam" Bake Timmons = Bill "Shit Stirrer Connor"  Q.E.D.  Whirr click whirr...Frank O'Dwyer might also be contained in that shell...pop stack to determine...whirr...click..whirr  "Killfile" Keith Allen Schneider = Frank "Closet Theist" O'Dwyer =  the mind reels.  Maybe they're all Bobby Mozumder.  --  Maddi Hausmann                       madhaus@netcom.com Centigram Communications Corp        San Jose California  408/428-3553
In article <healta.136.734813153@saturn.wwc.edu> healta@saturn.wwc.edu (TAMMY R HEALY) writes:   (Deletion) >You also said,"Why did millions suffer for what Adam and Ee did?  Seems a >pretty sick way of going about creating a universe..." > >I'm gonna respond by giving a small theology lesson--forgive me, I used >to be a theology major. >First of all, I believe that this planet is involved in a cosmic struggle-- >"the Great Controversy betweed Christ and Satan" (i borrowed a book title). >God has to consider the interests of the entire universe when making >decisions. (Deletion)   An universe it has created. By the way, can you tell me why it is less tyrannic to let one of one's own creatures do what it likes to others? By your definitions, your god has created Satan with full knowledge what would happen - including every choice of Satan.   Can you explain us what Free Will is, and how it goes along with omniscience? Didn't your god know everything that would happen even before it created the world? Why is it concerned about being a tyrant when noone would care if everything was fine for them? That the whole idea comes from the possibility to abuse power, something your god introduced according to your description?
This is the most unmitigated bilge I've seen in a while. Jim Brown obviously has possession of the right-wing token.  > Diplomatic alternatives, including sanctions, were ineffective.  "In December, former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski told a Senate committee that sanctions were costing Iraq $100 million per day, and that the multinational coalition could take all the time in the world. Iraq, he suggested, was losing badly every day it defied the UN demands, while the community of nations won every day -- with no taking of life or loss of life."  -- FCNL Washington Newsletter.  > The world is full of evil, and circumstances are not perfect.  Many > innocents suffer due to the wrongful actions of others.  It it regretable, > but that's The-Way-It-Is.  Wrongful actions of murderers like leaders of the US government, perhaps? Regrettable, of course; The-Way-It-Is - certainly not.  > The media is not totally monolithic. ... There are even conservative > sources out there if you know where to look.  (Hurrah for Rush!)  Good heavens! An escapee from Rush Limbot Land! "Conservative", my ass.  > And BTW, the reason I brought up the blanket-bombing in Germany was  > because you were bemoaning the Iraqi civilian casualties as being  > "so deplorable".  Yet blanket bombing was instituted because bombing  > wasn't accurate enough to hit industrial/military targets in a  > decisive way by any other method at that time.  But in the Gulf War,  > precision bombing was the norm.  BULLSHIT!!! In the Gulf Massacre, 7% of all ordnance used was "smart." The rest - that's 93% - was just regular, dumb ol' iron bombs and stuff. Have you forgotten that the Pentagon definition of a successful Patriot launch was when the missile cleared the launching tube with no damage? Or that a successful interception of a Scud was defined as "the Patriot and Scud passed each other in the same area of the sky"?  And of the 7% that was the "smart" stuff, 35% hit. Again - try to follow me here - that means 65% of this "smart" arsenal missed.  >                                                       The stories > of "hundreds of thousands" of Iraqi civilian dead is just plain bunk.  Prove it. I have a source that says that to date, the civilian death count (er, excuse me, I mean "collateral damage") is about 200,000.  -s --    "No one has attempted to calculate the costs of an execution in Washington state, but studies elsewhere suggest it costs far more than incarceration.    "California is spending more than $90 million annually on capital cases, and until this year hadn't executed anyone since 1972.  Texas, the national leader in the number of executions, spends an estimated $2.3 million per execution.  That compares to an average cost of incarceration in Washington state of $25,000 per maximum-security prisoner per year."
mathew writes:  >I prefer Mark-Jason Dominus's suggestion that the motto should be changed to >"Mind your own fucking business".  In this era of AIDS, isn't someone's fucking *everyone's* interest?  (semi :-))  I propose "We have no motto."  Recently in the glorious state of Maryland (the only state whose state song refers to Abraham Lincoln as a tyrant), people have gotten all wound up over the state motto (which we inherited from the Calverts):      "Fatti Maschii, Parole Femine"  which, if you read Italian, says,      "Manly deeds, womanly words"  or something to that effect.  In the state which not so long ago had four women out of seven representatives, this represents a problem.  The official solution was to change the translation, so now it means:      "Strong deeds, gentle words"  My personal suggestion was changing it to "walk softly and carry a big stick."
Benedikt Rosenau writes, with great authority:  >     IF IT IS CONTRADICTORY IT CANNOT EXIST.  "Contradictory" is a property of language.  If I correct this to         THINGS DEFINED BY CONTRADICTORY LANGUAGE DO NOT EXIST  I will object to definitions as reality.  If you then amend it to        THINGS DESCRIBED BY CONTRADICTORY LANGUAGE DO NOT EXIST  then we've come to something which is plainly false.  Failures in description are merely failures in description.  (I'm not an objectivist, remember.)
In article <4963@eastman.UUCP> dps@nasa.kodak.com writes: >In article 21627@ousrvr.oulu.fi, kempmp@phoenix.oulu.fi (Petri Pihko) writes: >|>Dan Schaertel,,, (dps@nasa.kodak.com) wrote: >|> >|> >|>What does this mean? To learn you must accept that you don't know  >|>something, right-o. But to learn you must _accept_ something I don't >|>know, why? This is not the way I prefer to learn. It is unwise to >|>merely swallow everything you read. Suppose I write a book telling >|>how the Great Invisible Pink Unicorn (tm) has helped me in my >|>daily problems, would you accept this, since you can't know whether >|>it is true or not? >|> > >No one asks you to swallow everything, in fact Jesus warns against it.   But let >me ask you a question.  Do you beleive what you learn in history class, or for >that matter anything in school.  I mean it's just what other people have told >you and you don't want to swallow what others say. right ... ?  Right.  >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.  You must TRUST, not just go  >to church and participate in it's activities.  Were you ever willing to die for what >you believed?    The Branch Dividians were. They believed and trusted so much that it became impossible to turn back to reality. What you are advocating is total irreversible brainwashing.
In article <schnitzi.735603785@eustis> schnitzi@eustis.cs.ucf.edu (Mark Schnitzius) writes: > >I'm sure all the religious types would get in a snit due >to Asimov's atheism. > >Do we have any atheists on stamps now? > >   Due to a discussion on this group some time ago, the theists would   more likely take an Asimov quote out of context and paint him as   the biggest Bible thumpin', God fearin', atheist hatin' christian   you ever laid eyes on.  Right up there with Einstein.   /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\   Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM   They said that Queens could stay, they blew the Bronx away, and sank Manhattan out at sea.