waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <1r5cmnINNb8@gap.caltech.edu>, keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes: |> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: |>  |> >Pardon me?   *I* am trying to apply human terms to non-humans? |>  |> That's right.  You are basically stating that morality can only deal with |> humans, because only humans are sentient enough to be moral (that is, |> you say that morality can only deal with intentions?).  I have never said that only humans are the only beings which are sufficiently sentient to have intentions.   In fact, I have explicitly said that I am perfectly happy to consider that some animals *are* capable of forming intentions.  What I am objecting to is considering programmed or instinctive behaviour to have moral significance, since, it seems to me,  such behaviour does *not* involve intention.  |>  |> >>I think that even if someone is not conscious of an alternative,  |> >>this does not prevent his behavior from being moral. |> >I'm sure you do think this, if you say so.   How about trying to |> >convince me? |>  |> I think that a moral act is moral whether or not the implementor  |> thinks it is.  That's not the point.   The point is whether the implementor thinks *at all*.    The issue is not whether thinking produces opinion A or opinion B, but whether thinking takes place, period.  |>  |> >I've offered, four times, I think, to accept your definition if |> >you allow me to ascribe moral significence to the orbital motion |> >of the planets. |>  |> Hmm... perhaps you can ascribe it.  I could say that many human actions |> are not "natural" and thus don't follow a natural morality.  Since humans are part of nature, are not all human actions "natural".  Or perhaps you're going to throw in a definition of "natural" that will allow us to describe some actions as "natural" and some as  "not natural".   If so, what is the definition?   |> Other than those death which surround mating rituals, other animals  |> just don't kill each other (within a species) that often, do they?    Sure they do, as multiple posters have show you.   Sharks, for example, eat wounded sharks.   I've personally seen cats eat their newborn.  Are you in some kind of denial?   People give you example after example, and you go off the air for a week, and then pop up claiming that it  never happened.    It's very strange.  |> But why don't animals kill each other?  See what I mean.   Here we go again.   What do we have to do: write up a tailor-made FAQ just for Mr Schneider?
This is the story of Kent, the archetype Finn, that lives in the  Bay Area, and tried to purchase Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason". This man was driving around, to Staceys, to Books Inc, to "Well, Cleanlighted Place", to Daltons, to various other places.  When he asked for this book, the well educated American book store assistants in most placed asked him to check out the thriller section, or then they said that his book has not been published yet, but they should receive the book soon. In some places the assistants bluntly said that they don't know of such an author, or that he is not  a well known living author, so they don't keep copies of his books.  Such is the life and times of America, 200+ years after the revolution.   Cheers, Kent
>In article <kutluk.734797558@ccl.umist.ac.uk> kutluk@ccl.umist.ac.uk (Kutluk Ozguven) writes: >>Atheists are not >>mentioned in the Quran because from a Quranic point of view, and a >>minute's reasoning, one can see that there is no such thing.   I guess that's why scientists probably aren't mentioned either.  Or stock brokers.  Or television repairmen.    It's precious to know just how deep the brainwashing from childhood ( that it takes to progress a religion ) cleans away a very substantial part of the reasoning neurons.  But don't mind me;  I don't exist.
In article <1qkq9t$66n@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes: |>  |> I'll take a wild guess and say Freedom is objectively valuable.  I base |> this on the assumption that if everyone in the world were deprived utterly |> of their freedom (so that their every act was contrary to their volition), |> almost all would want to complain.  Therefore I take it that to assert or |> believe that "Freedom is not very valuable", when almost everyone can see |> that it is, is every bit as absurd as to assert "it is not raining" on |> a rainy day.  I take this to be a candidate for an objective value, and it |> it is a necessary condition for objective morality that objective values |> such as this exist.  My own personal and highly subjective opinion is that freedom is a good thing.  However, when I here people assert that the only "true" freedom is in following the words of this and that Messiah, I realise that people don't even agree on the meaning of the word.  What does it mean to say that word X represents an objective value when word X has no objective meaning?
In article <1993Apr19.141112.15018@cs.nott.ac.uk>, eczcaw@mips.nott.ac.uk (A.Wainwright) writes: > Hi, >  > I have been having an argument about the origins of the bible lately with > a theist acquaintance.  He stated that thousands of bibles were discovered > at a certain point in time which were syllable-perfect.  This therefore > meant that there must have been one copy at a certain time; the time quoted > by my acquaintace was approximately 50 years after the death of Jesus.  Hi Adda,  Most Bible scholars agree that there was one copy of each book at a certain time -- the time when the author wrote it.  Unfortunately, like all works from this time period and earlier, all that exists today are copies.   >  > Cutting all of the crap out of the way (ie god wrote it) could anyone answer > the following: >  > 1.  How old is the oldest surviving copy of the new testament?  There are parts of books, scraps really, that date from around the mid second century (A.D. 130+).  There are some complete books, letters, etc. from the middle third century.  The first complete collection of the New Testament dates from the early 4th century (A.D. 325).  Throughout this period are writings of various early church fathers/leaders who quoted various scriptures in their writings.  > 2.  Is there any truth in my acquaintance's statements?  If you mean that someone discovered thousands of "Bibles" which were all perfect copies dating from the last part of the 1st century...No!  If you mean that there are thousands of early manuscripts (within the dates given above, but not letter perfect) and that the most probable text can be reconstructed from these documents and that the earliest original autographs (now lost) probably were written starting sometime shortly after A.D. 50, then yes.  > 3.  From who/where did the bible originate?  From the original authors.  We call them Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, James, and one other not identified.  > 4.  How long is a piece of string? ;-)  As long as you make it.  >  > Adda >  > --   Regards,
In article <1r8ou3$41u@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de> frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes: >In article <1993Apr22.070854.18213@nuscc.nus.sg> cmtan@iss.nus.sg (Tan Chade Meng - dan) writes: >#I'll be leaving in June.  That's because I'm going back to my university >#& alt.atheism is banned there (stupid theist intolerance).  Sad isn't it.   >#Anybody has any idea how I can circumvent this problem? > [Frank's solution deleted.]  If you have access to telnet, contact nyx.cs.du.edu.  It's a public access Unix system, completly free, and all you need to for access is a verifiable form of ID (I think he requires a notarized copy of a picture, or a check, or some such).
In article <ofp1qP600VpdINppwh@andrew.cmu.edu> Nanci Ann Miller <nm0w+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes: >timmbake@mcl.ucsb.edu (Bake Timmons) writes: >> There lies the hypocrisy, dude.  Atheism takes as much faith as theism.   >> Admit it! > >Besides... not believing in a god means one doesn't have to deal with all >of the extra baggage that comes with it!  This leaves a person feeling >wonderfully free, especially after beaten over the head with it for years! >I agree that religion and belief is often an important psychological healer >for many people and for that reason I think it's important.  However, >trying to force a psychological fantasy (I don't mean that in a bad way, >but that's what it really is) on someone else who isn't interested is >extremely rude.  What if I still believed in Santa Claus and said that my  It should be noted that belief in God is in itself no more a behavoral imperative than lack of belief. It is religion which causes the harm, not the belief in God.
David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:   >who: marshall@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Kevin Marshall) >what: <1q7kc3$2dj@csugrad.cs.vt.edu>   >KM> "Yeah, hilarious. Satanists believe Satan is a god, but not >KM> the only god. Satan is a part of Christian mythology. >KM> Therefore, one cannot reasonably worship Satan without >KM> acknowledging the existence of a Christian god. Satanists >KM> see Satan as their master, and they see God and Satan as  >KM> adversaries of similar power. Satanists believe in the >KM> eventual overthrow of God and a transfer of all power to >KM> their master. Kevin Marshall" >  >A great many Satanists DO NOT believe in Satan. Some do, some >don't. I'd go so far as to assert that most "orthodox" Satanists >do not worship Satan (Church of Satan, etc.) but rather "worship" >self. To hear LaVey say it, only idiots and fools believe in Satan >and or Allah. He knew that suckers are born every minute. > >--- Maximus 2.01wb  Anton LaVey's interpretation of Satanism has always puzzled me.  I read his "Satanic Bible" a few years ago for a social studies project, as well as a book by Arthur Lyons called "The Cult of Devil Worship in America."  The latter included a very interesting interview with the Black Pope in which he did indeed say that Satan was merely an instrument for one to realize the self.    When I refer to Satanism, I am referring to the mishmash of rural Satanic ritualism and witchcraft which existed before the Church of Satan.  I don't consider LaVey's church to be at all "orthodox," nor do I consider its followers "satanists."  LaVey combined the philosophies of Nietzsche, Crowley, and Reich, slapped in some religious doctrine, added a little touch of P.T. Barnum, and christened his creation the Church of Satan. No doubt the title was a calculated attempt to attract attention...I suppose he could have just as easily called it the Church of Free Sex.  At any rate, it worked (for a while).  In its heyday, the Church had a huge following, including such Hollywood celebrities as Sammy Davis, Jr. and Jayne Mansfield.  (I have a picture of LaVey with Sammy, by the  way.)    I find the idea of a Satanist not believing in Satan about as credible as a Christian not believing in Christ.  But if you include the Church of Satan, then I suppose I need to alter my definition.  Webster's Dictionary and The American Heritage Dictionary will have to do the same.
In article <16BA7103C3.I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de> I3150101@dbstu1.rz.tu-bs.de (Benedikt Rosenau) writes: >In article <1993Apr5.091258.11830@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> >darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes: >  >>(2) Do women have souls in Islam? >> >>People have said here that some Muslims say that women do not have >>souls.  I must admit I have never heard of such a view being held by >>Muslims of any era.  I have heard of some Christians of some eras >>holding this viewpoint, but not Muslims.  Are you sure you might not be >>confusing Christian history with Islamic history? >> >  >Yes, it is supposed to have been a predominant view in the Turkish >Caliphate. >   I am not aware of any "Turkish Caliphate" viewpoint on this. Can you reference?  However, I found a quote due to Imam Ali, whom the Shias follow:  "Men, never obey your women in any way whatsoever. Never let them give their advice on any matter whatsoever, even those of everyday life. Indeed, allow them freely to give advice on anything and they will fritter away one's wealth and disobey the wishes of the owner of this wealth.   We see them without religion, when, alone, they are left to their own devices; they are lacking in both pity and virtue when their carnal desires are at stake. It is easy to enjoy them, but they cause great anxiety. The most virtious among them are libertines. But the most corrupt are whores. Only those of them whom age has deprived of any charm are untainted by vice. They have three qualities particular to miscreants; they complain of being oppressed, whereas it is they who oppress; they make oaths, whereas they are lying; they pretend to refuse men's solicitations, whereas they desire them most ardently. Let us beg the help of God to emerge victorious from their evil deeds. And preserve us in any case from their good ones."  (Quote from Mas'ud al-Qanawi, ref. A. Bouhdiba, Sexuality in Islam,  p. 118).  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.  Selim Guncer
In article <C5uuL0.n1C@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu>, bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner) writes: |>  |> Many of the atheists posting here argue against their own parody of |> religion; they create some ridiculous caricature of a religion and |> then attack the believers within that religion and the religion itself |> as ridiculous. By their own devices, they establish a new religion, a |> mythology.  You mean Bobby Mozumder is a myth?    We wondered about that.  |> The point of course, is to erect an easy target and deflect the |> disputants away from the real issue - atheism. The fictional Christian |> or Moslem or Jew who is supposed to believe the distorted |> representation of their beliefs presented here, is therefore made to |> seem a fool and his/her arguments can thereby be made to appear |> ludicrous. The mythology is the misrepresentations of religion used |> here as fact.  You mean Bobby Mozumder didn't really post here?   We wondered about that, too.  So, Mr Conner.   Is Bobby Mozumder a myth, a performing artist,  a real Moslem. a crackpot, a provocateur?    You know everything and read all minds: why don't you tell us?
[reply to zazen@austin.ibm.com (E. H. Welbon)]   >>>     There is no means that i can possibly think of to prove beyond doubt >>>that a god does not exist (but if anyone has one, by all means, tell me >>>what it is).  Therefore, lacking this ability of absolute proof, being an >>>atheist becomes an act of faith in and of itself, and this I cannot accept. >>> I accept nothing on blind faith.   >>Invisible Pink Flying Unicorns!  Need I say more?   >...I harbor no beliefs at all, there is no good evidence for god >existing or not.  Some folks call this agnosticism.  It does not suffer >from "blind faith" at all.  I think of it as "Don't worry, be happy".   For many atheists, the lack of belief in gods is secondary to an epistemological consideration:  what do we accept as a reliable way of knowing?  There are no known valid logical arguments for the existence of gods, nor is there any empirical evidence that they exist.  Most philosophers and theologians agree that the idea of a god is one that must be accepted on faith.  Faith is belief without a sound logical basis or empirical evidence.  It is a reliable way of knowing?   There is probably nothing else most people would accept in the absence of any possibility of proof.  Even when we agree to take someone elses word "on faith", we just mean that having found this person to be reliable in the past, we judge him likely to be a reliable source now. If we find faith less reliable than logic and empirical evidence everywhere else, why assume it will provide reliable knowledge about gods?   The difference between the atheist and the theist is fundamentally then one of whether or not faith is held to be a reliable way of knowing, rather than, as some agnostic posters would have it, whether ones faith is in gods or no gods.  The theist believes that faith is an acceptable basis for a belief in gods, even if he rejects faith as reliable at other times, for example in his work as a scientist.  The atheist believes that only logic and empirical evidence lead to reliable knowledge.  Agnosticism seems to me a less defensible position than theism or atheism, unless one is a sceptic in regards to all other knowledge.  Without evidence, why should we believe in gods rather than Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny?   I would also like to point out as others have that the atheist doesn't require absolute knowledge of the lack of gods.  I don't believe that there is any such thing as absolute knowledge.  Atheism is the best and simplest theory to fit the (lack of) facts and so should be held until contrary evidence is found.
kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:  >>Natural morality may specifically be thought of as a code of ethics that >>a certain species has developed in order to survive. >Wait.  Are we talking about ethics or morals here?  Is the distinction important?  >>We see this countless >>times in the animal kingdom, and such a "natural" system is the basis for >>our own system as well. >Huh?  Well, our moral system seems to mimic the natural one, in a number of ways.  >>In order for humans to thrive, we seem to need >>to live in groups, >Here's your problem.  "we *SEEM* to need".  What's wrong with the highlighted >word?  I don't know.  What is wrong?  Is it possible for humans to survive for a long time in the wild?  Yes, it's possible, but it is difficult.  Humans are a social animal, and that is a cause of our success.  >>and in order for a group to function effectively, it >>needs some sort of ethical code. >This statement is not correct.  Isn't it?  Why don't you think so?  >>And, by pointing out that a species' conduct serves to propogate itself, >>I am not trying to give you your tautology, but I am trying to show that >>such are examples of moral systems with a goal.  Propogation of the species >>is a goal of a natural system of morality. >So anybody who lives in a monagamous relationship is not moral?  After all, >in order to ensure propogation of the species, every man should impregnate >as many women as possible.  No.  As noted earlier, lack of mating (such as abstinence or homosexuality) isn't really destructive to the system.  It is a worst neutral.  >For that matter, in herds of horses, only the dominate stallion mates.  When >he dies/is killed/whatever, the new dominate stallion is the only one who >mates.  These seems to be a case of your "natural system of morality" trying >to shoot itself in the figurative foot.  Again, the mating practices are something to be reexamined...
In article <1993Apr10.125109.25265@bradford.ac.uk> L.Newnham@bradford.ac.uk (Leonard Newnham) writes:  >Gregg Jaeger (jaeger@buphy.bu.edu) wrote:  >>Could you please explain in what way the Qur'an in your eyes carries >>"the excess baggage of another era"? The Qur'an in my opinion carries >>no such baggage.   >How about trying to run a modern economy without charging interest on >loans.  From what I hear, even fundamentalist Iran is having to >compromise this ideal.  Which sort of loans and what have you heard exactly?
In article <1qu485$58o@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>, frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes: |> In article <1qkovl$k@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes: |> # |> #False dichotomy.  You claimed the killing were *not* religiously |> #motivated, and I'm saying that's wrong.   I'm not saying that |> #each and every killing is religiously motivate, as I spelled out |> #in detail. |>  |> Which killings do you say are religously motivated?  For example, I would claim that the recent assassination of four catholic construction workers who had no connection with the IRA was probably religously motivated.  |> At the time |> of writing, I think that someone who claims the current violence is |> motivated by religion is reaching.  What would you call is when someone writes "The killings in N.I  are not religously motivated?"  |> Now, it's possible to argue that  |> religion *in the past* is a major contributing factor to the violence in |> the present, but I don't know of any evidence that this is so - and I'm |> not enough of a historian to debate it.   Given that the avowed aim of the IRA is to take Northern Ireland into a country that has a particular church written into its  constitution, and which has restriction on civil rights dictated by that Church, I fail to see why the word "past" is appropriate.   |> #|> #But to claim that "The killings in N.I are not religously  |> #|> #motivated." is grotesque.   All that means is that the Church |> #|> #and believers are doing what they always do with history |> #|> #they can't face: they rewrite it. |> #|>  |> #|> You're attacking a different claim.  My claim is that when an IRA |> #|> terrorist plants a bomb in Warrington s/he does not have as a motive  |> #|> the greater glory of God.  |> # |> #Sorry, Frank, but what I put in quotes is your own words from your |> #posting <1qi83b$ec4@horus.ap.mchp.sni.de>.  Don't tell us now that  |> #it's a different claim.   If you can no longer stand behind your  |> #original claim, just say so. |>  |> I mean the same thing when I say "The killings in N.I. are not religously |> motivated" as I do when I say when a terrorist plants a bomb s/he |> doesn't have a religious motive.  The example is meant to clarify, not |> to be a new claim.  The "different claim" to which I refer is the claim |> which you were seemingly attacking in the previous post, namely that religion  |> is not a major historical cause of the present violence.  I don't assert  |> that, nor do I assert its opposite.  You don't have to hand us a bunch of double-talk about what I was "seemingly" attacking.   I *quoted* what I was attacking.
Ed McCreary (edm@twisto.compaq.com) wrote: : >>>>> On 16 Apr 93 05:10:18 GMT, bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) said:  : RB> In article <ofnWyG600WB699voA=@andrew.cmu.edu> pl1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Patrick C Leger) writes: : >EVER HEAR OF : >BAPTISM AT BIRTH?  If that isn't preying on the young, I don't know what : >is... : > : RB>    : RB>   No, that's praying on the young.  Preying on the young comes : RB>   later, when the bright eyed little altar boy finds out what the : RB>   priest really wears under that chasible.  Does this statement further the atheist cause in some way, surely it's not intended as wit ...
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.
In article <healta.145.734928689@saturn.wwc.edu>, healta@saturn.wwc.edu (Tammy R Healy) writes: [deletia wrt pathetic Jee-zus posting by Bissel]  > I hope you're not going to flame him.  Please give him the same coutesy you' > ve given me.  NO. He hasn't extended to US the courtesy you've shown us, so he don't get no pie. Tammy, I respect your beliefs because you don't try to stamp them into my being. I have scorn for posters whose sole purpose appears to be to evangelize.