waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
>DATE:   Fri, 16 Apr 1993 15:23:54 GMT >FROM:   Umar Khan <khan@itd.itd.nrl.navy.mil> > > His conclusion was that, >while he was impressed that what little the Holy Qur'an had to >say about science was accurate, he was far more impressed that the >Holy Qur'an did not contain the same rampant errors evidenced in >the Traditions.  How would a man of 7th Century Arabia have known >what *not to include* in the Holy Qur'an (assuming he had authored >it)?   > Well, it looks like the folks in soc.religion.islam have loosened up a bit and are discussing this topic as well as the banking/interest topic.  A few books on the subject have also been mentioned in addition to the one you mentioned.  These may be hard to find, but I think I may take a stab at it out of curiosity.  I know the one film I saw on this subject was pretty weak and the only two quotes I have seen which were used to show science in the Koran (which I posted here) were also pretty  vague.  I suspect that these books will extrapolate an awful lot on the quotes they have.  At least one poster on the Islam channel seems to have some misgivings about the practice of using the Koran to decide what is good science.  I wonder if Islam has ever come up with the equivalent of the Christians "Creation Science" on any topic.  It would be interesting to find a history of scientific interpretations of the Koran, to see if anyone used the Koran to support earlier science which has since been discarded.  It is all too easy to look at science as it exists today and then "interpret" passages to match those findings.  People do similar things with the sayings of Nostradamus all the time.
livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:  >Perhaps the chimps that failed to evolve cooperative behaviour >died out, and we are left with the ones that did evolve such >behaviour, entirely by chance.  That's the entire point!  >Are you going to proclaim a natural morality every time an >organism evolves cooperative behaviour?  Yes!  Natural morality is a morality that developed naturally.  >What about the natural morality of bee dance?  Huh?
[reply to jimh@carson.u.washington.edu (James Hogan)]   >So, what's someone with a prediliction to shit-shoveling to do when the >latest "I know what you atheists are about" arrival on a.a. shows up? >Ignore the Bills, Bobbys, Bakes?  Try to engage in reasonable discourse? >While flame-fests have been among some of the most entertaining threads >here, other tugs-of-war with folks like Bobby have grown old before >their time.   I take the view that they are here for our entertainment.  When they are no longer entertaining, into the kill file they go.
In article <C5HIEw.7s1@portal.hq.videocart.com>, dfuller@portal.hq.videocart.com (Dave Fuller) writes: |>   Hello. I just started reading this group today, and I think I am going |> to be a large participant in its daily postings. I liked the section of |> the FAQ about constructing logical arguments - well done. I am an atheist, |> but I do not try to turn other people into atheists. I only try to figure |> why people believe the way they do - I don't much care if they have a  |> different view than I do. When it comes down to it . . . I could be wrong. |> I am willing to admit the possibility - something religious followers  |> dont seem to have the capability to do.  Welcome aboard!  |>  |>   I notice alot of posts from Bobby. Why does anybody ever respond to  |> his posts ? He always falls back on the same argument:  (I think you just answered your own question, there)  |>  |> "If the religion is followed it will cause no bad" |>  |>   He is right. Just because an event was explained by a human to have been |> done "in the name of religion", does not mean that it actually followed |> the religion. He will always point to the "ideal" and say that it wasn't |> followed so it can't be the reason for the event. There really is no way |> to argue with him, so why bother. Sure, you may get upset because his  |> answer is blind and not supported factually - but he will win every time |> with his little argument. I don't think there will be any postings from |> me in direct response to one of his.  Most responses were against his postings that spouted the fact that all atheists are fools/evil for not seeing how peachy Islam is. I would leave the pro/con arguments of Islam to Fred Rice, who is more level headed and seems to know more on the subject, anyway.  |>  |>   Happy to be aboard !  How did you know I was going to welcome you abord?!?  |>  |> Dave Fuller |> dfuller@portal.hq.videocart.com |>  |>
In article <930419.122738.5s2.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> wrote: >  > lpzsml@unicorn.nott.ac.uk (Steve Lang) writes: > > Values can also refer to meaning.  For example in computer science the > > value of 1 is TRUE, and 0 is FALSE. >  > Not in Lisp.  True, all you need to define is one statement that defined one polarity, and all the other states are considered the other polarity. Then again what is the meaning of nil, false or true :-) ?  Cheers, Kent
>DATE:   Mon, 5 Apr 1993 16:30:50 GMT >FROM:   Stilgar <west@next02cville.wam.umd.edu> > >In article <kmr4.1422.733983061@po.CWRU.edu> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M.   >Ryan) writes: >> In article <1993Apr5.025924.11361@wam.umd.edu>   >west@next02cville.wam.umd.edu (Stilgar) writes: >>  >> >THE ILLIAD IS THE UNDISPUTED WORD OF GOD(tm)    *prove me wrong* >>  >> 	I dispute it. >>  >> 	Ergo: by counter-example: you are proven wrong. > >	I dispute your counter-example > >	Ergo: by counter-counter-example: you are wrong and >	I am right so nanny-nanny-boo-boo TBBBBBBBTTTTTTHHHHH >			8^p >
Keith M. Ryan (kmr4@po.CWRU.edu) wrote:  : 	Nice cop out bill.  I'm sure you're right, but I have no idea to what you refer. Would you mind explaining how I copped out?
In article <1993Apr18.231914.143616@zeus.calpoly.edu>, jmunch@hertz.elee.calpoly.edu (John Munch) wrote: > >Mathew "FAQ" can't remember his last name > >Keith "Lie Tally .sig" Ryan > >Kent "Finn-tastic" Sandvick > >Cindy "Popsicle Toes" Kandolf > >Jim "Face .sig" Tims > >Simon "Clip-that-theist" Clippendale > >Umar "Reasonable" Khan > >Rob "Argue with G-d" Strom > >Dave "Buckminster" Fuller > >Maddi "Never a useful post" Hausmann >  > Hey, what about an affectionate nickname for me?  You could take my wrongly spelled surname :-).  Cheers, Kent Sandvik
In article <sandvik-150493144638@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes: >Looking at historical evidence such 'perfect utopian' islamic states >didn't survive. I agree, people are people, and even if you might >start an Islamic revolution and create this perfect state, it takes  >some time and the internal corruption will destroy the ground rules -- >again. >  Nothing is perfect. Nothing is perpetual. i.e. even if it is perfect, it isn't going to stay that way forever.   Perpetual machines cannot exist. I thought that there were some laws in mechanics or thermodynamics stating that.  Not an atheist BN --
In article <1993Apr21.140649.5660@cs.nott.ac.uk>, kax@cs.nott.ac.uk (Kevin Anthoney) writes: > In article <4949@eastman.UUCP> dps@nasa.kodak.com writes: >> >>The fact is God could cause you to believe anything He wants you to.  >>But think about it for a minute.  Would you rather have someone love >>you because you made them love you, or because they wanted to >>love you. ... >  > There's a difference between believing in the existence of an entity, > and loving that entity. God _could_ show me directly that he exists, > and I'd still have a free choice about whether to love him or not. So > why doesn't he? > --  > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Kevin Anthoney                                         kax@cs.nott.ac.uk >             Don't believe anything you read in .sig files. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --  Kevin makes a good point here, and when that theists miss all-too-often.  That is, the belief in a diety is not necessarily coupled with agreement/love of that diety, so really they have yet another bit of convincing to do just beyond belief. I guess the standard argumet goes something like: well, once you believe in God, you know God is love, and you will choose to love him-- if it wasnt so widely accepted and asserted it'd be laughable...  best regards,  --Adam
>>>>> On 5 Apr 93 11:24:30 MST, jbrown@batman.bmd.trw.com said:  :> God is eternal.    [A = B] :> Jesus is God.      [C = A] :> Therefore, Jesus is eternal.  [C = B]  :> This works both logically and mathematically.  God is of the set of :> things which are eternal.  Jesus is a subset of God.   Therefore :> Jesus belongs to the set of things which are eternal.  Everything isn't always so logical....  Mercedes is a car. That girl is Mercedes. Therefore, that girl is a car?
In article <930405.172903.4w6.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes: >Nanci Ann Miller <nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes: >> If this god is truly omnipotent as you folks like to claim, then why can't >> he terminate eternity? > >For the same reason he can't flibble glop ork groink. > >The thing you are demanding that he must be able to do, has no meaning in its >own terms.  This is a classic example of excessive faith in reason.  The fact that we have trouble talking about something doesn't imply that it is impossible; it simply implies that it is hard to talk about.  There is a very good chance that God *can* flibble glop ork groink.  Charlie Wingate can flibble glop ork groink, and he isn't even God.
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:  >>Look, I'm not the one that made those Nazi comparisons.  Other people >>compared what the religious people are doing now to Nazi Germany.  They >>have said that it started out with little things (but no one really knew >>about any of these "little" things, strangely enough) and grew to bigger >>things.  They said that the motto is but one of the little things  >You just contradicted yourself.  The motto is one of those little things that >nobody has bothered mentiopning to you, huh?  The "`little' things" above were in reference to Germany, clearly.  People said that there were similar things in Germany, but no one could name any. They said that these were things that everyone should know, and that they weren't going to waste their time repeating them.  Sounds to me like no one knew, either.  I looked in some books, but to no avail.  >>that is >>going to pave the way for other "intrusions."  Of course, if the motto >>hasn't caused problems in its 40 year history, then I doubt it is going to... >It *has* caused problems.  You just ignore every instance when someone >describes one to you.  It has *caused* problems?  Again, no one has shown that things were better before the motto, or that they'd likely be better after.  I don't think the motto initiates any sort of harassment.  Harassment will occur whether or not the motto is present.
On Tue, 20 Apr 1993 04:49:18 GMT bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) wrote: >Robert Singleton (bobs@thnext.mit.edu) wrote:  >: > Sure it isn't mutually exclusive, but it lends weight to (i.e. increases >: > notional running estimates of the posterior probability of) the  >: > atheist's pitch in the partition, and thus necessarily reduces the same  >: > quantity in the theist's pitch. This is because the `divine component'  >: > falls prey to Ockham's Razor, the phenomenon being satisfactorily  >:                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >: > explained without it, and there being no independent evidence of any  >:   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >: > such component. More detail in the next post. >: >   >Occam's Razor is not a law of nature, it is way of analyzing an >argument, even so, it interesting how often it's cited here and to >what end.  >It seems odd that religion is simultaneously condemned as being >primitive, simple-minded and unscientific, anti-intellectual and >childish, and yet again condemned as being too complex (Occam's >razor), the scientific explanation of things being much more >straightforeward and, apparently, simpler.   Cute characterization Bill; however, there is no inconsistency between  the two statements.  Even if one believes that religion is "primitive,  simple-minded and unscientific, anti-intellectual and childish", one can still hold the view that religion also adds an unnecessary level of complexity to the explanation.  The ideas themselves don't have to be complex before being excised by Occam's Razor, they only have to add  unnecessarily to the overall complexity of the description.  >                                           Which is it to be - which >is the "non-essential", and how do you know?  I think the non-essential part of an explanatory system is one that adds no predictive capability to the system.  >Considering that even scientists don't fully comprehend science due to >its complexity and diversity. Maybe William of Occam has performed a >lobotomy, kept the frontal lobe and thrown everything else away ...  Huh?  >This is all very confusing, I'm sure one of you will straighten me out >tough.  ^^^^^ Watch it, your Freudian Slip is showing
In article <sandvik-140493185034@sandvik-kent.apple.com> sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes: >From: sandvik@newton.apple.com (Kent Sandvik) >Subject: Re: Free Moral Agency and Kent S. >Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1993 01:51:57 GMT >In article <healta.135.734811375@saturn.wwc.edu>, healta@saturn.wwc.edu >(TAMMY R HEALY) wrote: >> Ezekiel 28:17 says, Your hart was filled with pride because of all your  >> beauty; you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor.  Therefore  >> I have cast you down the the ground and exposed you helpless before the  >> curious gaze of Kings." > >> For those of you who are Bible scholars, you knowthat the 1st 11 verses  >> refer to the Prince of Tyre.  This is a prophesy about and addressed to the  >> human prince.  Verses 12-19 refer to the King of Tyre, which is a term for  >> Satan. > >Tammy, what's the rationale to connect the prince of Tyre with Satan, >could you give us more rational bible cites, thanks? I'm afraid that >if this is not the case, your thinking model falls apart like a house >of cards. But let's see! > >Cheers, >Kent >--- >sandvik@newton.apple.com. ALink: KSAND -- Private activities on the net.  At the time Ezekiel was written, Israel was in apostacy again and if I'm not  mistaken, Tyre was about to make war on Israel.  Like I said, the Prince of  Tyre was the human ruler of Tyre.  He was a wicked man.  By calling Satan  the King of Tyre, Ezekiel was saying that Satan is the real ruler over Tyre.  Don't think my interpretation is neccessarily the orthodox Christian one,  although most Christian Bible commentaries interpret the King of Tyre as  being a reference to Satan. (I haven't read Ezekiel throughly in a long  time.)
In article <11812@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes: >In article <1993Apr14.205414.3982@leland.Stanford.EDU> rush@leland.Stanford.EDU (Voelkerding) writes: >> >>If we worry about the one case in 20,000 (or more) where an innocent man is >>convicted of something horrible enough to warrant the death penalty,  and >>hence put laws into place which make it virtually impossible to actually >>execute real criminals,  then the death penalty is not serving its original >>purpose.  It should either be changed or done away with. >> > >  I don't have numbers to back this up, so take the following >  accordingly. > >  You use an off-the-cuff number of 1 in 20,000 innocent people >  sentenced to die as an acceptable loss for the benefit of capital >  punishment.  I'd be very, very surprised if the ratio were that >  low.  There have been approximately a dozen known cases of the >  execution of the innocent in the US since the turn of the century. >  Have we in that same period sentenced 240,000 people to death? >  Accounting for those cases that we don't know the truth, it seems >  reasonable to assume that twice that many innocent people have in >  fact been executed.  That would raise the number of death >  sentences metered out since 1900 to half a million for your >  acceptance ratio to hold.  I rather doubt that's the case. > > >  The point, of course, is what *is* an acceptable loss.  1 in >  10,000?  Seems we're probably not doing even that well.  1 in 100? >  1 in 2?  Or should we perhaps find a better solution? > >/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\  > >Bob Beauchaine bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM  >  Any suggestions as to what a better solution might be?  I realize the off-hand nature of the numbers I used.  And I can't answer as to what an acceptable loss rate is.  However,  as I said in another post,  I despise the idea of supporting criminals for life.  It's the economics of the situation that concern me most.  The money spent feeding, clothing, housing and taking care of people who have demonstrated that they are unfit to live in society could go to a number of places,  all of which I, and probably others,  would consider far more worthwhile and which would enrish the lives of all Americans.  Give people jobs,  give the homeless shelter.  Any number of things.  Clyde
In article <1993Apr17.225127.25062@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> mccullou@snake2.cs.wisc.edu (Mark McCullough) writes: >You exagerate to the point of libel.  I gave only unpopular reasons >deliberately.  Or do you think that we should have let Iraq absorb Kuwait? >I could make the tired old 1939 Poland comparison, but I think you've >heard it.  But the principle aplies, never play a Chamberlain and >roll over to another country being invaded.  That only invites further  >invasions.  	Perhaps we ought not to have supported a known genocidist? 	Provided him with weapon systems, tactical support, technology, etc.  	We made Suddam Hussein.  	What did Bush call him? Oh yes, an ally and a freind.   ---      " I'd Cheat on Hillary Too."
In article <30151@ursa.bear.com>, halat@pooh.bears (Jim Halat) writes: |> In article <C5snCL.J8o@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes: |>  |> >Evolution, as I have said before, is theory _and_ fact.  It is exactly |> >the same amount of each as the existence of atoms and the existence of |> >gravity.  If you accept the existence of atoms and gravity as fact, |> >then you should also accept the existence of evolution as fact. |> > |> >--  |> >--Andy |>  |> I don't accept atoms or gravity as fact either.  They are extremely useful |> mathematical models to describe physical observations we can make. |> Other posters have aptly explained the atomic model.  Gravity, too, is |> very much a theory; no gravity waves have even been detected, but we |> have a very useful model that describes much of the behavior on |> objects by this thing we _call_ gravity.  Gravity, however, is _not_  |> a fact.  It is a theoretical model used to talk about how objects  |> behave in our physical environment.  Newton thought gravity was a |> simple vector force; Einstein a wave. Both are very useful models that  |> have no religious overtones or requirements of faith, unless of course you  |> want to demand that it is a factual physical entity described exactly  |> the way the theory now formulated talks about it.  That takes a great  |> leap of faith, which, of course, is what religion takes.  Evolution |> is no different. |>  |> --  |>  jim halat         halat@bear.com      |> bear-stearns       --whatever doesn't kill you will only serve to annoy you-- |>    nyc             i speak only for myself      What do you accept as a fact --  the roundness of the earth (after  all, the ancient Greeks thought it was a sphere, and then Newton said  it was a spheroid, and now people say it's a geoid [?])?  yourself  (isn't your personal identity just a theoretical construct to make  sense of memories, feelings, perceptions)?  I'm trying to think of  anything that would be a fact for you.  Give some examples, and let's see how factual they are by your criteria (BTW, what are your criteria?).      "Gravity is _not_ a fact": is that a fact?  How about Newton's  and Einstein's thoughts about gravity -- is it a fact that they had  those thoughts?  I don't see how any of the things that you are  asserting are any more factual than things like gravity, atoms or  evolution.      In short, before I am willing to consider your concept of what a fact is, I'm going to have to have, as a minimum, some examples of what you think are facts.
In article <9454@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM>, naren@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Naren Bala) writes:  > LIST OF KILLINGS IN THE NAME OF RELIGION  > 1. Iran-Iraq War: 1,000,000 > 2. Civil War in Sudan: 1,000,000 > 3, Riots in India-Pakistan in 1947: 1,000,000 > 4. Massacares in Bangladesh in 1971: 1,000,000 > 5. Inquistions in America in 1500s: x million (x=??) > 6. Crusades: ??  7. Massacre of Jews in WWII: 6.3 million 8. Massacre of other 'inferior races' in WWII: 10 million 9. Communist purges: 20-30 million? [Socialism is more or less a religion] 10. Catholics V Protestants : quite a few I'd imagine 11. Recent goings on in Bombay/Iodia (sp?) area: ?? 12. Disease introduced to Brazilian * oher S.Am. tribes: x million  > -- Naren  The Desert Brat
In <1qla0g$afp@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:  >In article <115565@bu.edu>, jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes: >|> In article <1qi3l5$jkj@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) 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. >|>  [...deletions...]  >BBCI was an example of an Islamically owned and operated bank - >what will someone bet me they weren't "real" Islamic owners and >operators? - and yet it actually turned out to be a long-running >and quite ruthless operation to steal money from small and often >quite naive depositors.  An "Islamic Bank" is something which operates in a different fashion to your modern bank, as I have explained here (on another thread) before. For example, Islamic banks don't pay fixed interests on deposits, but a return on investments (which varies according to the market, and is not fixed like interest is).  Islamic banks are a relatively new phenomenon in the Islamic world. There are no Islamic banks in "the West", including the USA, to my knowledge.  I doubt if the market for them exists there -- at least not while "Islamic banks" are at a relatively early stage of their development as is the case now.  BCCI is most certainly not an "Islamic bank" -- did BCCI ever pay a fixed interest rate on deposits?  If the answer to this question is "yes", then BCCI was not an Islamic bank, as Islamic banks are specifically set up to _not_ pay or charge interest.  Whether some Muslims partially owned the bank or whatever is completely irrelevant.