waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
From: jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com >Actually, it was the fact that both situations existed that prompted US >and allied action.  If some back-water country took over some other >back-water country, we probably wouldn't intervene.  Not that we don't >care, but we can't be the world's policman.  Or if a coup had occured >in Kuwait (instead of an invasion), then we still wouldn't have acted >because there would not have been the imminent danger perceived to >Saudi Arabia.  But the combination of the two, an unprovoked invasion >by a genocidal tyrant AND the potential danger to the West's oil  >interests, caused us to take action.  There are many indications that would have taken place had Saddam been wanting or planning on going into Saudi Arabia.  There were none.  This has been openly stated by ex-Pentagon analysts.  Pull.  From: jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com >I'm not setting up a strawman at all.  If you want to argue against the >war, then the only logical alternative was to allow Hussein to keep >Kuwait.  Diplomatic alternatives, including sanctions, were ineffective.  Actually, reports from other mid-east countries showed that Hussein was ready to make concessions due to the sanctions.  We just didn't want him to - we wanted to crush him, as well as battle-test all these high tech toys we've built over the years.  From: jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com >Probably because we're not the saviors of the world.  We can't police each >and every country that decides to self-destruct or invade another.  Nor >are we in a strategic position to get relief to Tibet, East Timor, or >some other places.  We're also hypocrites of the first magnitude.  Obviously, we don't give a shit about freedom and democracy.  All we care about is our oil.  Oh, and the excuse, now that the Soviets are gone from the board, to keep a sizable military presence in the gulf region.  Care to make bets about when ALL our troops will come home?  Basically, Saddam was OK with us.  He was a killer, who tortured his own people, used gas on them, and other horrors - he was a brutal dictator, but he was OUR brutal dictator.  Once he said "fuck you" to the US, he became the next Hitler.  The same for Noriega.  He was a bastard, but he was OUR bastard...until he changed his mind and went his own way.  Then we had to get rid of him.    David Hunt - Graduate Slave |     My mind is my own.      | Towards both a Mechanical Engineering      | So are my ideas & opinions. | Palestinian and Carnegie Mellon University  | <<<Use Golden Rule v2.0>>>  | Jewish homeland! ====T=H=E=R=E===I=S===N=O===G=O=D=========T=H=E=R=E===I=S===N=O===G=O=D===== Email:  bluelobster+@cmu.edu    Working towards my "Piled Higher and Deeper"
In article <1993Apr6.030734.28563@ennews.eas.asu.edu>, guncer@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Selim Guncer ) writes: > > I wouldn't consider this quote as being exemplary of the Islamic  > (TM) viewpoint though.  For all we know, the prophet's cousin and > the Fourth Khalif Hazret-i Ali may have said this after a  > frustrating night with a woman.  That's very interesting.    I wonder, are women's reactions recorded after a frustrating night with a man?   Is that considered to be important?
mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes:  >>David Wood writes: >> >>    "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." > >More seriously, this is just a high-falutin' way of saying "I don't believe >what you're saying".  Are you making a meta-argument here?  In any case, you are wrong.   Think of those invisible pink unicorns.  >Also, the existence if Jesus is not an extradinary claim.    I was responding to the "historical accuracy... of Biblical claims", of which the existence of Jesus is only one, and one that was not even mentioned in my post.  >You may want to >complain that the miracles attributed to him do constitute such claims (and >I won't argue otherwise), but that is a different issue.  Wrong.  That was exactly the issue.  Go back and read the context included within my post, and you'll see what I mean.  Now that I've done you the kindness of responding to your questions, please do the same for me.  Answer the Charley Challenges.  Your claim that they are of the "did not!/ did so!" variety is a dishonest dodge that I feel certain fools only one person.
To all a.a readers:      I have been asked be several of you to post a list of the SDA Church's  27 Fundamental beliefs.  I warn you now, it's a long list.  However, I'll  post it on Sunday.  Sabbath is coming up soon so I won't be reading on  Saturday.  And I don't have time to do it now.      I would GREATLY appreciate it if you would keep me in touch with what's  going on.      I hope all of you have a reastful and relaxing weekend.  I hope it's  the best one so far!!
In article <11867@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>, bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) wrote: >  > In article <EDM.93Apr20145436@gocart.twisto.compaq.com> edm@twisto.compaq.com (Ed McCreary) writes: > > > >While we're on the topic of books, has anyone else noticed that Paine's > >"The Age of Reason" is hard to find.  I've been wanting to pick up > >a copy for a while, but not bad enough to mail order it.  I've noticed > >though that none of the bookstores I go to seem to carry it.  I thought > >this was supposed to be classic.  What's the deal? > >-- >  >   Me too.  Our local used book store is the second largest on the >   West Coast, and I couldn't find a copy there.  I guess atheists >   hold their bibles in as much esteem as the theists.  If I remember correctly Prometheus books have this one in stock, so just call them and ask for the book.  Cheers, Kent
In article <1993Apr22.015922.7418@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes: >In article <37501@optima.cs.arizona.edu> sham@cs.arizona.edu (Shamim Zvonko Mohamed) writes: >>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.  >I have heard figures closer to 80%, ...  >>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.  >Most figures I have seen place the hit ratio close to 70%, which is  >still far higher than your 35%.  >> 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.    Obviously, we have different sources. Bill Moyers (who happens to be a theist, to tie this to alt.atheism!) in his PBS documentary "After The War" is my main source. (I think I still have it on videotape.) Others include The Nation and The Progressive.  The rest of the article is mere rationalisation. You may claim that sanitation plants are strategic "legitimate" targets, but what happens to the civilians in a city with no sewer system? What happens to the civilians when you destroy water purification plants? And when hospitals can't handle the resultant epidemics, because there is no more electricity?  And what exactly are your sources? We have all, I'm sure, seen Postol's interviews in the media where he demostrates how the Pentagon lied about the Patriot's effectiveness; what is your source for the 70% effectiveness you claim?  In any case, I don't know if this is relevant to alt.atheism. How about if we move it somewhere else?  -s
In article <C5pxqs.LM5@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>, bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) wrote: > As for your question of moral free-agency, given the Christian > position above, the freedom we have is to acknowledge God. The > morality we practice is a direct outgrowth of how we excercise that > freedom. You are free to ignore God in the same way you are free to > ignore gravity and the consequences are inevitable and well known > in both cases. That an atheist can't accept the evidence means only > that he prefers not to accept it, it says nothing about the evidence > itself.   I agree, I had a hard feeling not believing my grand-grand mother who told me of elves dancing outside barns in the early mornings. I preferred not to accept it, even if her statement provided the truth itself. Life is hard.  Cheers, Kent
In article <1993Apr12.124221.22592@bradford.ac.uk> L.Newnham@bradford.ac.uk (Leonard Newnham) writes: > >Oh, this all sounds so nice!  Everyone helping each other and always smiling >and fluffy bunnies everywhere.  Wake up!  People are just not like that.  It >seems evident from history that no society has succeeded when it had to rely >upon the goodwill and unselfishness of the people.  Isn't it obvious from >places like Iran that even if there are only a few greedy people in society >then they are going to be attracted to positions of power?  Sounds like a >recipe for disaster. > >--  > >Leonard               e-mail:  L.Newnham@bradford.ac.uk  Leonard, I'll give you an example of this....  My father recently bought a business, the business price was 150,000 pounds and my father approached the people in the community for help, he raised 60,000 pounds in interest free loans from friends and relatives and  Muslims he knew, 50,000 had cash and the rest he got a business loan, after paying off the Muslim lenders many of them helped him with further loans to help him clear the bank debt and save him from further intrest, this is an example of a Muslim community helping one another, why did they help because of their common identity as Muslims. In turn my father has helped with people buying houses to minimise the amount of intrest they pay  and in some cases buy houses intrest free with the help of those more fortunate in the community.   The fact is Leonard it DOES work without a fluffy bunny in sight! iThat is the beauty of Islam.  Mas
In article <1qugin$9tf@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes: |> In article <1qkogg$k@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: |> |> #And in that area, what you care about is whether someone is sceptical, |> #critical and autonomous on the one hand, or gullible, excitable and |> #easily led on the other. |>  |> Indeed I may.  And one may be an atheist and also be gullible, excitable |> and easily led. |>  |> #I would say that a tendency to worship tyrants and ideologies indicates |> #that a person is easily led.   Whether they have a worship or belief  |> #in a supernatural hero rather than an earthly one seems to me to be |> #beside the point. |>  |> Sure.  But whether or not they are atheists is what we are discussing, |> not whether they are easily led.    Not if you show that these hypothetical atheists are gullible, excitable and easily led from some concrete cause.   In that case we would also have to discuss if that concrete cause, rather than atheism, was the factor that caused their subsequent behaviour.
Another article that fell between the cracks:  In article <1qiu97INNpq6@srvr1.engin.umich.edu> ingles@engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:  As evidence for the Resurrection, it is often claimed that the Disciples were tortured to death for their beliefs and still did not renounce their claim that Jesus had come back from the dead.  Now, I skimmed Acts and such, and I found a reference to this happening to Stephen, but no others. Where does this apparently very widely held belief come from? Is there any evidence outside the Bible? Is there any evidence *in* the Bible? I sure haven't found any...  Briefly, no.  There is widespread folklore, but no good documentary evidence, or even solid rumor, concerning the deaths of the Apostles. Further, the usual context of such arguments, as you observe, is "No Martyrs for a Lie": i.e. the willingness of these people to die rather than recant is evidence for the truth of their belief.  This adds the quite stronger twist that the proposed martyrs must have been offered the chance of life by recanting.  Since we don't even know how or where they died, we certainly don't have this information.  (By the way, even in the case of Stephen it is not at all clear that he could have saved himself by recanting).  The willingness of true believers to die for their belief, be it in Jesus or Jim Jones, is well-documented, so martyrdom in and of itself says little.  [See 1Kings18:20-40 for a Biblical account of the martyrdom of 450 priests of Baal].
bissda@saturn.wwc.edu (DAN LAWRENCE BISSELL) writes:  >	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.  Or he was just convinced by religious fantasies of the time that he was the Messiah, or he was just some rebel leader that an organisation of Jews built into Godhood for the purpose off throwing of the yoke of Roman oppression, or.......  >	Some reasons why he wouldn't be a liar are as follows.  Who would  >die for a lie?   Are the Moslem fanatics who strap bombs to their backs and driving into Jewish embassies dying for the truth (hint: they think they are)? Were the NAZI soldiers in WWII dying for the truth?   People die for lies all the time.   >Wouldn't people be able to tell if he was a liar?  People   Was Hitler a liar? How about Napoleon, Mussolini, Ronald Reagan? We spend millions of dollars a year trying to find techniques to detect lying? So the answer is no, they wouldn't be able to tell if he was a liar if he only lied about some things.  >gathered around him and kept doing it, many gathered from hearing or seeing  >someone who was or had been healed.  Call me a fool, but I believe he did  >heal people.    Why do you think he healed people, because the Bible says so? But if God doesn't exist (the other possibility) then the Bible is not divinely inspired and one can't use it as a piece of evidence, as it was written by unbiased observers.  >	Niether was he a lunatic.  Would more than an entire nation be drawn  >to someone who was crazy.  Very doubtful, in fact rediculous.  For example   Were Hitler or Mussolini lunatics? How about Genghis Khan, Jim Jones... there are thousands of examples through history of people being drawn to lunatics.  >anyone who is drawn to David Koresh is obviously a fool, logical people see  >this right away. >	Therefore since he wasn't a liar or a lunatic, he must have been the  >real thing.    So we obviously cannot rule out liar or lunatic not to mention all the other possibilities not given in this triad.  >	Some other things to note.  He fulfilled loads of prophecies in  >the psalms, Isaiah and elsewhere in 24 hrs alone.  This in his betrayal   Possibly self-fulfilling prophecy (ie he was aware what he should do in order to fulfil these prophecies), possibly selective diting on behalf of those keepers of the holy bible for a thousand years or so before the general; public had access. possibly also that the text is written in such riddles (like Nostradamus) that anything that happens can be twisted to fit the words of raving fictional 'prophecy'.  >and Crucifixion.  I don't have my Bible with me at this moment, next time I  >write I will use it.              [stuff about how hard it is to be a christian deleted]  I severely recommend you reconsider the reasons you are a christian, they are very unconvincing to an unbiased observer.
In <sandvik-250493163828@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:  >In article <markp.735580401@avignon>, markp@avignon (Mark Pundurs) wrote: >> You take LSD, and it skews your perception of reality. You come down, >> and your perceptions unskew.  >I've never taken LSD, but read about the strange lifes and times >of the Ashbury Heights culture. Something that was usually profound >was the way these LSD trippers mentioned that after their first trip >they changed their view of the world. In other words taking LSD would  >change their reference frames. Which would indicate that deep changes >due to let us say rewiring of the brain temporarily will indeed >change frames. And this leads to the statement that there is no >solid reference frame; the LSD trippers modified their relative  >view.  Much of the Haight-Ashbury crowd probably had pre-existing  dissatisfactions with their lives -- dissatisfactions ameliorated by mumbo-jumbo about 'new realities'. The only change I experienced after  LSD was to gain the knowledge that I didn't enjoy how LSD twisted my perception. -- Mark Pundurs
bissda@saturn.wwc.edu (DAN LAWRENCE BISSELL) writes:  >	Niether was he a lunatic.  Would more than an entire nation be drawn  >to someone who was crazy.  Find an encyclopedia. Volume H. Now look up Hitler, Adolf. He had many more people than just Germans enamoured with him.  P.
acooper@mac.cc.macalstr.edu (Turin Turambar, ME Department of Utter Misery) said re. Dan Schaertel's article [if I followed the quoting right]:   >> As much as anything else you learn.  How do you choose what >> to believe and what not to?  I could argue that George >> Washington is a myth.  He never lived because I don't have >> any proof except what I am told.  However all the major >> events of the life of Jesus Christ were fortold hundreds of >> years before him.  Neat trick uh?  > How is this?  There is nothing more disgusting than Christian attempts to > manipulate/interpret the Old Testament as being filled with signs for the > coming of Christ.  Every little reference to a stick or bit of wood is > autmoatically interpreted as the Cross.  What a miscarriage of philology.  I think it may also be worthwhile pointing out that if we take the appellation `Rabbi' seriously then Jesus had a full grasp of contemporary `scripture'  Mat21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures...  Mat22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing Mat22:29 the scriptures, nor the power of God.  Following from this, he would have been in a wonderful position to fulfil prophesies, and the NT says as much:  Mat26:54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, Mat26:54 that thus it must be?  Mat26:56 But all this was done, that the scriptures of the Mat26:56 prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples Mat26:56 forsook him, and fled.  If the books comprising the referred-to `scripture' had not been accessible then it probably would be a different matter.
kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) Pontificated:  > >Q:  How many Moslem men does it take to rape a woman? >A:  Five, one to commit the act, and four to witness the penetration. > > >"A guilty verdict can be rendered only if there is a confession or if there >are at least two male witnesses to the crime.  Adultery and rape are proved >only if four witnesses have seen the actual penetration, an occurrence that >presumably does not happen often."  Is this from the Quran (or however it's spelled)?
In article <11847@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:  >In article <115670@bu.edu> jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:  >>In article <11826@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:  >>I am refuting nothing but simply telling you what I see, which is >>childish propaganda and nothing to be refuted. BCCI was not  >>an Islamic bank, so this post has nothing to do with Islamic banks.  >>I am tiring of this infantile garbage, so I simply evaluated it >>as such.  >>>  Could you maybe flesh it out just a bit?  Or did I miss the full >>>  grandeur of it's content by virtue of my blinding atheism?  >>You may be having difficulty seeing the light because you >>have your head up your ass. I suggest making sure this is  >>not the case before posting again.  >  It's time for your lesson in debate, Gregg.  Yeah, right.  >Begin included text: >From vice!news.tek.com!uunet!psinntp!wrldlnk!usenet Sun Apr 18 10:01:11 PDT 1993  >I noticed a post on this topic in soc.religion.islam.   And since the topic >of the BCCI being/not being an Islamic bank has come up, I have left in the >one mention of the BCCI bank called "How BCCI adapted the Koran rules of >banking" from this bibliography.   >Bennett, Neil.  "How BCCI adapted the Koran rules of banking".  The  >Times.  August 13, 1991.  So, let's see. If some guy writes a piece with a title that implies something is the case then it must be so, is that it?  >  This is how you support a position if you intend to have anyone >  respect it, Gregg.  Any questions?  And I even managed to include >  the above reference with my head firmly engaged in my ass.  What's >  your excuse?  This supports nothing. I have no reason to believe that this is  piece is anything other than another anti-Islamic slander job. I have no respect for titles, only for real content. I can look up this article if I want, true. But I can tell you BCCI was _not_ an Islamic bank. Seeing as I'm spending my time responding to propaganda (in responding to this little sub-thread) I really don't feel a deep need to do more than make statements to the effect that the propaganda is false. If someone wants to discuss the issue more seriously then I'd be glad to have a real discussion, providing references, etc.
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.  >More interesting is your sentence,   >>In fact, many people try to come to the US to have their children >>born here so that they will have some human rights.  >How does the US compare to an Islamic country in this respect?  Do people >go to Iran so their children will have some human rights?  Would you?  More interesting only for your propaganda purposes. I have said several times now that I don't consider Iran particularly exemplary as a good Islamic state. We might talk about the rights of people in "capitalist secular" third world countries to give other examples of the lack of rights in third world countries broadly. Say, for example, Central American secular capitalist countries whose govt's the US supports but who Amnesty International has pointed out are human rights vacua.
Perhaps it's prophetic that the week "Where are they now?" appears and I can claim to be a still-active old-timer, my news software gets bit rot and ships outgoing articles into a deep hole somewhere...  Anyway, here's a repost:  In article <1qi156INNf9n@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> tcbruno@athena.mit.edu (Tom Bruno) writes: > >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 [...]  These days you don't have to fall far behind... Last Monday (admittedly after a long weekend, but...) I had 800+ messages just in those few days.  Aside from a hiatus while changing jobs last Fall I've been here since 1990.  >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.  Hell, Norway?  The rubber room at the funny farm?  Seminary?  It is not given to us to know...
In article <C5qGM3.DL8@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes: >Merely a question for the basis of morality > >Moral/Ethical behavior = _Societally_ _acceptable_ _behavior_.  I disagree with these.  What society thinks should be irrelevant.  What the individual decides is all that is important.  > >1)Who is society  I think this is fairly obvious  > >2)How do "they" define what is acceptable?  Generally by what they "feel" is right, which is the most idiotic policy I can think of.  > >3)How do we keep from a "whatever is legal is what is "moral" "position?  By thinking for ourselves.